# There is no power superior to nature.



## blumenthal

Hi everyone.  Can someone translate the following phrase into Latin please:  "There is no power superior to nature."  I realise it may not be possible to get a direct translation, but no matter how hard I try, every time I translate each word, and then translate it back, the phrase ends up with a different meaning.  I've managed to get "Ibi est haud vis supernus ut natura," but the meaning of each word keeps changing depending on how it's written. 
Please help, as I want it as a tattoo to go with another I have written in Greek.
Many thanks.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings.

You are quite right, the sense of many words in most languages changes according to the context.

First up, 'ibi est...' Means "Over there / yonder is...", and all you need for "There is..." in the English context is plain 'est' - and even this can often be left out in proverbial or epigrammatic statements.

There are various possible formulations. One would be

nulla vis natura potentior (literally "[There is] no force more powerful than nature") - where _natura_ has to be pronounced with a long final 'a' (as in Englsh "father", rather than as in "hat") because it is in the ablative case.

Another possibility is "nulla vis naturam vincit [or "superat"]" (literally "no force overpowers/conquers nature"). I suggest you wait for some other suggestions before you take the plunge, and see which suits best the sense you want.


----------



## blumenthal

Scholiast said:


> nulla vis natura potentior (literally "[There is] no force more powerful than nature")



Thank you for your reply. This is certainly the sort of thing I'm looking for, and look forward to more suggestions.
 So to confirm, am I to understand that Latin negates the use of the word "est" in this context? (est nulla vis natura potentior). Where as in English we would simply use "There is?"


----------



## Scholiast

Hello blumenthal

As I said in #2, 





> all you need for "There is..." in the English context is plain 'est' -  and even this can often be left out in proverbial or epigrammatic  statements



There is no grammatical rule governing this sort of omission. But Latin "likes" clipped and economical expression (cf. _fiat iustitia_, "Let justice be done"; _virtus sola nobilitas_, "Virtue is the only [form of] nobility"), expecially in "gnomic" statements such as the one for which you have asked for a version. Putting in _est_ would not be a grammatical error, but it is not needed.

Best wishes


----------



## XiaoRoel

A mi me gusta: *Natura omnia uincit*. Es otra posibilidad de traducción parafraseando el famoso _*Amor omnia uincit*_.


----------



## Joca

Vis naturae maxima.


----------



## bibax

A shorter version (_no force_ replaced by _nothing_):

*Nihil natura potentius* (literally "[There is] nothing more powerful than nature").

(there is no need to have 'force' and 'powerful' in one sentence)


----------



## blumenthal

bibax said:


> A shorter version (_no force_ replaced by _nothing_):
> 
> *Nihil natura potentius* (literally "[There is] nothing more powerful than nature").
> 
> (there is no need to have 'force' and 'powerful' in one sentence)



Given both phrases, "*Nulla vis natura potentior*" and "*Nihil natura potentius,"* why does "*potentius" *replace* "potentior?"*


----------



## bibax

*Vis* (= force) is feminine in Latin, like _la force_ in French.

*Nihil* (= nothing) is neuter in Latin.

The adjective *potentior* (= more powerful) must agree with _vis_ or _nihil_ in gender. _Potentior_ is the masculine/feminine form, _potentius_ is the neuter gender form.


----------

