4

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".

  • 1
    Welcome to the site! Could you give more context? I mean, enough is usually an adverb that needs to modify an action or a quality (i.e., verb or adjective). It seems to me that you want to imply something (e.g., I'm good enough as a person) rather than enough actually modifying to be (which normally doesn't admit degrees) – Rafael Jan 31 at 12:35
  • HI! Thanks for the welcome. Yes, looking to imply something like your example, "good enough as a person". I have tried looking online and there is just many different answers as to what it can actually be. I am not even sure if "I am enough" can be directly translated into Latin. Any help will be greatly appreciated :) – Drish Jan 31 at 12:45
  • 1
    I took the liberty to edit your question a bit. Feel free to make further edits or undo mine! – Joonas Ilmavirta Jan 31 at 13:55
  • 1
    @JoonasIlmavirta - thank you for the edit! much appreciated :) – Drish Feb 1 at 4:39
4

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".

  • 3
    Welcome to the site, and nice answer! Note that in Latin you can omit the verb to be, so ego satis isn't wrong from that point of view – Rafael Jan 31 at 16:25
  • @Rafael I would say even more: Omitting the sum sounds more idiomatic than leaving it in when it comes to a motto. But that's just a minor detail; this is a very nice answer. – Joonas Ilmavirta Jan 31 at 16:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.