This is one of the terms which lives as transitive and intransitive verb. I know that this is probably not too uncommon in natlangs, but when I thought of this concept, it was new to me. It is one of the words from the early stage of the language.

It actually raises an interesting point. Namely: How do you know whih cases to use with which verb. I thought about how to say ‘Sike defeated Jinhes’ and for a second realized that there are many possibilities. And I realized again that this is not a bug but a feature. You can use ‘ja (“against”), no suffix or even ‘han (indicating a direction) and be understood. In the earliest existing text, it appeared in, its object was not marked: “Lasane’xen mi’ki’viki iln” (Our team will defeat you). ‘han however is rather peculiar. If you use ‘han you give the victory the quality of being pyrric. An example here might be the only GDR vs FRG match. West Germany lost but the loss meant that they got into an easier group than the GDR which had to face Brazil and elimination soon after it. In this case: Duixlan jya mi’la’viki duixlan’han kisut (East Germany won for the benefit for West Germany). Maybe the first match between Hungary and Germany would also warrant such a construction.

Example: Slovakiha mi’la’viki Italiha ly ja xi. (Slovakia 3S-PST-win Italy 3 against 2) listen