# vincit qui patitur



## icalienes

"vincit qui patiuntur"

is this Italian? if so, what does it mean?


----------



## cscarfo

It's Latin and it means "who endures, wins"


----------



## venice

icalienes said:


> "vincit qui patiuntur"
> 
> is this Italian? if so, what does it mean?


 
Ciao,
no it isn't Italian, it's Latin.
I think the translation might be: "vince chi ha pazienza"= Who is patient will be a winner" (literally: "who has patience wins").
Bye


----------



## venice

cscarfo said:


> It's Latin and it means "who endures, wins"


 
Esatto, è il proverbio "Chi l'ha dura ,la vince" o qualcosa di simile.
Ciao


----------



## stella_maris_74

venice said:


> Esatto, è il proverbio "Chi l'ha dura ,la vince" o qualcosa di simile.
> Ciao



Almost! It's Chi la dura, la vince

Ciao! 

dani


----------



## icalienes

Mólte  gra`zie!


----------



## venice

stella_maris_74 said:


> Almost! It's Chi la dura, la vince
> 
> Ciao!
> 
> dani


 
Si è vero, come ho fatto a prendere un granchio del genere?
Ciao e grazie.


----------



## fox71

venice said:


> Esatto, è il proverbio "Chi l'ha dura ,la vince" o qualcosa di simile.
> Ciao


 
  Mi hai fatto ride, Venice!
Con l' acca potrebbe essere uno slogan per film porno!


----------



## venice

fox71 said:


> Mi hai fatto ride, Venice!
> Con l' acca potrebbe essere uno slogan per film porno!


 
Ehmm.... si, ci ho pensato dopo anch'io, ciao


----------



## virgilio

The meaning of the rather odd sentence "vincit qui patiuntur" is "He (she, it) conquers those who suffer"
Th meanings suggested above would have been correct for either of the two following:
(1) vincunt qui patiuntur  - they conquer who suffer
(2) vincit qui patitur        - he conquers who suffers

Let's get it right, folks!

Virgilio


----------



## Whodunit

virgilio said:


> The meaning of the rather odd sentence "vincit qui patiuntur" is "He (she, it) conquers those who suffer"
> Th meanings suggested above would have been correct for either of the two following:
> (1) vincunt qui patiuntur - they conquer who suffer
> (2) vincit qui patitur - he conquers who suffers
> 
> Let's get it right, folks!
> 
> Virgilio


 
That would be grammatically correct, but does it make much sense to you? The verb _pati_ can have more than one meaning, and I think _to allow_ is one of them. So, what about this translation?

_He conquers/defeats those who allow/tolerate (it)_.

I think your _suffer_ can have the same meaning, but it seems a bit ambiguous to use this word, since it could also mean _inopia premi _or something like that.


----------



## virgilio

Whodunit,
             It wasn't the connotation of "pati" that I was correcting but the syntax error involved in taking the same nominative as being simultaneously singular and plural.
As for sense, the whole sentence - whatever meaning you give to "patiuntur" - seems to me so subjective that I almost felt that translating it was an intrusion on the author's privacy.
Presumably it means something special to him or her.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## clara mente

There are several observations I would like to make regarding this sentence and its subsequent analysis.
First, what do we do with the relative pronoun "qui"? Is it the subject of "vincit" i.e."ille, qui" which is grammatically correct or is is subverted into the subordinate clause? leaving "vicit illos qui patiuntur".
My gut tells me that perhaps "vicit" should be spelled "viciunt" redering the translation as "those who suffer(endure), conquer "It just makes more sense somehow.


----------



## virgilio

clara,
       I agree with your interpretation. If I may correct a little typographical error, ""viciunt" should - if I understand you rightly - be "vincunt".
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## clara mente

Yes, I stand corrected, since "vincere" is in fact a regular 3rd conjugation verb. On another related note, by doing the mind exercise on "vincere" it also came to mind that "vincit" can also indeed be the 3rd. per. sing. of the verb "vincio, ire", however, I don't thing this would make much sense either( bind, compress).


----------



## Flaminius

Hi virgilio,
If we can safely assume there is a typo here, I wonder if "vincit qui patitur" is equally plausible.  When used in a saying, singular sounds to me more nifty than plural.


----------



## virgilio

Flaminius,
             Assuming that by "nifty" you mean "more probable", I agree. I have suspected all along that we were dealing with a typographical error but, as it stood, it was translatable, albeit rather improbably.
As an example of paradox, however, I don't think that it ranks alongside some of GK Chesterton's - but that's another thread!

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Whodunit

Flaminius said:


> Hi virgilio,
> If we can safely assume there is a typo here, I wonder if "vincit qui patitur" is equally plausible. When used in a saying, singular sounds to me more nifty than plural.


 
I think that would be the correct saying. Here's a discussion about it, although you might have already checked it, too.


----------



## Flaminius

Thank you for double-checking, Who.  I have just changed the thread title to the correct saying.


----------

