You found a great canon example, and I do not doubt, especially given the new understanding of how {-moH} works, that you are generally right. I’m sure there are plenty of situations where we can use {-moH} on a verb with no direct object. {SuvwI’ jIH. jISuvmoH.} "I am a soldier. I cause fighting." I don’t have to be specific about who I cause to fight.
Your specific canon example is somewhat of a special case, since the very definition of {ghoS} implies a direct object. It means, “approach, go away from, proceed, come, follow (a course)”.
It's not really a special case. ghoS doesn't imply a
direct object any more than Suv implies a direct object,
and you did not hesitate to write jISuvmoH.
When you do not include an object on a verb that could take one, it's understood that the verb is acting on a vague, general object. That object is NOT syntactically part of the sentence. jISuv I fight. Whom or what I fight is left vague or general, but obviously I'm fighting someone or something.
This is no different with ghoS. The given translation is made very explicit because go is insufficient for an English speaker to understand the connection between ghoS and its object, but once you understand that connection, it's grammatically no different to ghoS something than it is to Suv something. ghoS is a perfectly normal word. It's just not equivalent to just one English word, so explaining it takes some time. But once you know what it is, it's simple and unremarkable.
Please understand the difference between the existence of an
object and the existence of an entity that would be an object if
the entity were mentioned. Object is a syntactic role of a
word in a sentence. If a word does not appear in a sentence, it
has no syntactic role in that sentence. If jIghoS, then
the course I follow may exist, but it is not the object of the
sentence.
In the HolQeD interview, Okrand elaborated on the special nature of the verb {ghoS}. It doesn’t just mean to move around or to change one’s location. It implies a course. It ALWAYS implies a course. You can state the course as a direct object, if the course has a name, or you can use as a direct object any location associated with the course. It could be the starting point, or the target, or just some location along the way. Most commonly, it’s the destination. Or you can omit mention of the course, but, the course is always there. The verb {ghoS} is meaningless without a course.
You are outrageously overstating what Okrand said in the interview. He gave no such absolutes. ghoS is the act of following a course, so naturally the idea of a course is inherent in the action, but there is no syntactic requirement for a course to be listed. Just as Suv implies some kind of fight occurring, even if you don't syntactically have to mention any fight. The word itself contains the meaning you're discussing. No, ghoS doesn't always have an implied object of a course; the course is inherent in the verb itself. ghoS means follow a course all by itself.
Otherwise, you should use {leng} or maybe {vIH}. It’s special in the same way that {vegh} is special. {leng} and {vIH} might or might not have a course, but {ghoS} and {vegh} imply moving along a specific path.
That’s why you can say {juH vIghoS} and {juHDaq jIghoS}. They are both grammatically correct, and it would seem that they mean the same thing, but in the interview, he clarified that the first one means, "I’m moving along the course associated with home,” while the second one actually means, “I’m in/at my home, and I’m moving along a course with no explicit identification of what that course might be.”
Note that he declared that the locative-inherentness of these
verbs makes a distinction between juH vIghoS and juHDaq
jIghoS, but it's not actually deducible just from the
grammar given in TKD. Prior to Okrand's declaration, we were
perfectly able to analyze juH vIghoS and juHDaq jIghoS
as meaning exactly the same thing. It took an Okrandian decree to
change this.
I think he even said that if you said, {juHDaq vIghoS}, the meaning is that you are in/at home, and you are moving along a course.
juHDaq vIghoS can mean I follow it (a course) at home,
or it can mean I go home. For the latter, the -Daq
on juH would be considered redundant and unnecessary, but
not out-and-out wrong. There is no actual prohibition on putting
type 5 suffixes on objects — the example in TKD 3.5.5 actually
does this — and this is a case where you can do so, even if doing
so makes Klingons look at you funny.
Klingons usually have a reason for using a suffix.
You're about to indulge in what I think of as an "a Klingon would
never" argument. I don't usually find them productive for
understanding the grammar. They're useful for asking how a Klingon
would respond to something, but not in understanding the rules.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name