Suppose I'm in one room, gowron is at another, and I want to say "I go to gowron".

Until some time ago, I would have said {ghawran vIjaH}, but recently I started wondering whether {jaH} can indeed take a person as an object.

I'm asking, because writing {ghawran vIjaH} gives me the impression that at the end of the {jaH}ing, I'll be actually hugging gowron, standing on him or something similar.

jaH takes the destination as its object. If ghawran is your destination, then ghawran is the object. His being a destination doesn't imply that you end up standing on top of him.

If you think about it, whenever you go to a person you are actually approaching him, and at the end of the approaching, the thing which has actually taken place, is that the initial distance has been considerably decreased.

But you don't actually go *to* him/her, in the same way you'd go to a place, where you end up standing in/on that place.

You're taking things far too literally. The language doesn't work like that.

So, why not say instead {ghawran vIchol} or {ghawran vIghoS} ?

You can say those things. ghawran vIchol doesn't imply that ghawran is your destination, just that the distance between you is lessened. ghawran vIghoS implies that ghawran, as a location, defines your course, and most of the time that'll be your destination, but it's not required. (For example, consider the classic problem of the runaway train and the railroad switch. If I take the left fork, I will run over Gowron. If I take the right fork, I will run over fifty innocent people. To minimize the deaths, I turn left. ghawran vIghoS, but Gowron isn't my destination.)

When you use language, there isn't one precise formulation that correctly defines the given situation. Language is about expression, and you can express different things about any situation. You choose the words that best express what it is about a situation you want to express.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name