Can someone help me distinguish between "ego satis" vs "sum satis" vs "Ego satis superque sum"?
I want to say "I am enough" as in "good enough as a person".
Caveat: my Latin is extremely basic, and mostly gained from noodling around.
That said, I would worry about the other potential back-translations of satis, as an adjective. It can mean "filled", for instance.
On the other hand, there is a verb that means, among other things, "is sufficient" - and that meaning is the only intransitive one I can find. That would be sufficio.
As a transitive verb, it can mean a lot of things - supply, put under or among, to lay foundations for (a building), dip in/dye, and more. Intransitively, it simply means the subject is sufficient, adequate, capable. Though I don't find that in all references that I checked before writing this, and suspect context would affect things a lot.
So, bearing in mind all those caveats, it is possible that just "sufficio" alone means "I am sufficient".
ETA: To answer the direct question at the start of the question, though, I think that "ego satis" would be roughly translatable as "I enough" or "I filled", as it is missing any verb to be. "Sum satis" is, I think, grammatical, and means "I am enough" or "I am filled", or "I am plenty", though it would feel more typical in terms of word order as "satis sum", to me. The third option I just cannot parse. I mean, I can break it down into parsing units, but can't see how they can fit together grammatically in that way. Satis is an adjective in that construction, but super is an adverb or preposition. I'm not sure it's valid to "and" them together like that. If I try to read satis as an adverb, I guess it might mean "I exist sufficiently and more than". Or "I exist sufficiently and above". If the -que weren't there, I guess it could mean "I am above enough".