Qui avaritiam superare non potest, liberalitatem numquam facile intellegit.

Here qui means he who, the person who, or more generally whoever.

It is the nominative singular masculine form of the relative pronoun qui, quae, quod. In this sentence it is being used substantively, which means it stands on its own rather than referring back to an expressed noun.

So:

• Qui ... intellegit = the person who ... understands
• more smoothly: Whoever ... understands

Because in English, who usually needs an antecedent:

• The man who speaks
• The student who learns

But Latin can use qui by itself to mean the one who or whoever. There is no stated noun before it, so English usually has to supply one:

• Qui avaritiam superare non potest = He who cannot overcome greed
• or Whoever cannot overcome greed

So qui is not just a plain relative who here; it functions almost like a noun phrase.

They are both direct objects.

• avaritiam is the object of superare:
  superare avaritiam = to overcome greed
• liberalitatem is the object of intellegit:
  liberalitatem intellegit = he understands generosity

The -am ending shows the accusative singular for these first- and third-declension nouns.

Because potest regularly takes an infinitive.

• potest = he/she/it is able, can
• superare = to overcome

Together:

• superare potest = is able to overcome / can overcome

With negation:

• superare non potest = cannot overcome

This is a very common Latin construction:

• potest facere = can do
• potest videre = can see

Both are 3rd person singular present indicative active.

• potest = he/she/it can or is able
• intellegit = he/she/it understands

They are singular because the subject introduced by qui is understood as a single person: the one who ...

Even though English may translate this generically as whoever or someone who, Latin still keeps the verb in the singular.

The sentence has two main parts:

1. Qui avaritiam superare non potest
   = the person who cannot overcome greed

2. liberalitatem numquam facile intellegit
   = never easily understands generosity

The first part identifies the subject, and the second part tells what that subject does.

A useful way to see it is:

• [He who cannot overcome greed] [never easily understands generosity].

So the opening qui-clause is acting like the subject of the main verb intellegit.

Because non negates the verb phrase potest.

• potest = can
• non potest = cannot

Since potest governs superare, the whole idea becomes cannot overcome.

Latin often places non directly before the word it is negating, though word order can vary. Here it is very straightforward:

• superare non potest = is not able to overcome

• numquam = never
• facile = easily

Together with the verb:

• numquam facile intellegit = never easily understands

In natural English, you might also say:

• can never easily understand
• will never readily understand

The idea is not necessarily that understanding is absolutely impossible in every sense, but that it does not come easily.

That is a very common question.

Facile is an adverb meaning easily. It comes from facilis, facile.

Many Latin adjectives form adverbs in -e or -iter/-ter, depending on the adjective. With facilis, both facile and faciliter can be found, but facile is very common.

So in this sentence:

• facile intellegit = understands easily

You do not need to assume that facile is an adjective here; it is functioning adverbially.

It is most likely general.

Although qui is grammatically masculine singular, Latin often uses the masculine singular for a generic person. So this sentence is not necessarily about one particular man; it can mean:

• anyone who cannot overcome greed
• a person who cannot overcome greed

So the masculine form is grammatical, not necessarily narrowly biological or personal in reference.

No. In classical Latin, liberalitas usually means generosity, open-handedness, or nobility of giving.

So:

• avaritia = greed
• liberalitas = generosity

The sentence contrasts these two moral qualities. A greedy person does not readily grasp true generosity.

This is about character and ethics, not modern politics.

Yes. Latin word order is relatively flexible because the endings show the grammatical roles.

For example, these would express essentially the same basic meaning:

• Qui non potest avaritiam superare, liberalitatem numquam facile intellegit.
• Liberalitatem qui avaritiam superare non potest numquam facile intellegit.

However, the original order is natural and clear. Latin often uses word order for emphasis or style, not just basic grammar.

In the original:

• avaritiam comes before superare, keeping the object close to the infinitive
• liberalitatem comes early in the second clause, giving it some emphasis

Yes. The sentence is built on a moral contrast:

• avaritia = grasping, selfish desire to keep or gain wealth
• liberalitas = generosity, willingness to give

The idea is that a person dominated by greed is not in a good position to understand generosity. So the grammar is simple, but the sentence also has a clear ethical contrast between two opposite qualities.