yIja''egh
(an example from TKD 4.2.1)
-- ghunchu'wI'In canon, Okrand has only ever used a word like lut as the object of ja'. He has never explicitly used a person as its object.
Hang on. I found a better example than that.
loDnI'Daj vavDaj je ja' qeylIS Kahless tells his brother and father (PB)
But paq'batlh also has SengmeywIj vIja'laHbe' I cannot speak of my tragedies, chaHvaD lut ja' told them his tale, lut ja'taHvIS Hem rewbe' The people tell the tales with pride, le'yo' lutmey juja'pu'mo' qatlho' I think you, for your stories of pride (Hey, it's an example of someone saying qatlho'), DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja' Now I will tell you why I am here, 'ej mu'meyvam ja' And spoke these words, qeylISvaD mu'meyvam ja'ta' molor qotar je This is what Kotar and Molor / Have said to Kahless, ghIq pagh ja'taHvIS Then without a word, quv HIja'chuqQo' Don't speak to me of honor!
So going by paq'batlh, it is possible to use a person as the object of ja', but it's FAR more common to use the words or information told as the object.
My guess: the "natural" object of ja' is the direct object, the information or words told. When using a direct object, any indirect object must be explicitly marked with -vaD. But when there is no explicit direct object, the indirect object, the entity to whom something is told, can sit in the object position.
Much like the way -moH seems to work with objects.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name