Qui constantiam habet, timorem facilius vincit.

Here qui means the one who, he who, or in a more general English style, anyone who.

It is a relative pronoun being used substantively, which means it stands by itself instead of referring back to an expressed noun. Latin often does this.

Qui is nominative masculine singular.

• nominative because it is the subject of habet
• singular because the idea is the person who
• masculine because Latin often uses the masculine singular as a general form for a person in statements like this

If the sentence were clearly about a woman, you could expect quae instead.

Yes. You can think of an understood is meaning the one before qui.

So the sense is something like:

[is] qui constantiam habet

But Latin very often leaves that is unstated. This is a normal and common construction.

Because constantiam is the direct object of habet.

The sentence says that the person has steadfastness, so constantiam answers the question what does he have?

Parsing:

• constantiam = accusative singular
• dictionary form: constantia, -ae (feminine)

For the same reason: timorem is the direct object of vincit.

The person overcomes fear, so timorem answers what does he overcome?

Parsing:

• timorem = accusative singular
• dictionary form: timor, timoris (masculine)

Facilius is a comparative adverb, meaning more easily.

So:

• facilius vincit = overcomes more easily

This is a very common Latin pattern. Comparative adverbs often end in -ius.

It may look like a neuter comparative adjective form, and historically it is related to that, but here it functions as an adverb, modifying vincit.

Because both verbs refer to the same singular person: the one who has steadfastness.

Parsing:

• habet = he/she/it has
• vincit = he/she/it overcomes

Both are:

• present
• active
• indicative
• third-person singular

The present tense here expresses a general truth or habitual fact, not just one specific moment.

Latin usually does not need to repeat a subject pronoun when the verb ending already makes the person and number clear.

So after qui constantiam habet, Latin simply continues with timorem facilius vincit. The subject is understood to be the same person.

English often wants an explicit subject, but Latin often does not.

It has two main parts:

• Qui constantiam habet = an opening relative clause
• timorem facilius vincit = the main statement

So the pattern is:

the one who has X, overcomes Y more easily

This is a very natural Latin way to make a general statement.

Because Latin word order is much more flexible than English word order.

English depends heavily on position:

• subject + verb + object

Latin depends much more on case endings, so the roles of the words are already clear.

In this sentence:

• qui is the subject of the first verb
• constantiam is the object of habet
• timorem is the object of vincit
• facilius modifies vincit

Because the endings show the grammar, Latin can arrange the words more freely for style, balance, or emphasis.

Not especially.

The comma simply helps a modern reader see where the opening relative clause ends:

Qui constantiam habet, | timorem facilius vincit.

Latin punctuation is much less essential to grammar than English punctuation. In older Latin texts, punctuation was often minimal or absent. The grammar is carried mainly by the word forms themselves.