Pour vs Parce que - French Language2024-03-29T08:45:52Zhttp://www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk/forum/topics/pour-vs-parce-que?feed=yes&xn_auth=noYes, sort of: pour usually tr…tag:www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk,2011-11-10:3179028:Comment:583922011-11-10T09:28:19.181ZNeil Coffeyhttp://www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk/profile/NeilCoffey
<p>Yes, sort of: <strong>pour</strong> <em>usually</em> translates to "for", and that's helpful if your native language happens to be English. And the difference is extremely obvious in the examples you gave of "for" in the sense of "intended for", "for the benefit of". But both <strong>pour</strong> in French and <em>for</em> in English have other uses where it's less obvious, and "pour" in effect means something closer to "because of". I suspect that is the specific use that the poster was…</p>
<p>Yes, sort of: <strong>pour</strong> <em>usually</em> translates to "for", and that's helpful if your native language happens to be English. And the difference is extremely obvious in the examples you gave of "for" in the sense of "intended for", "for the benefit of". But both <strong>pour</strong> in French and <em>for</em> in English have other uses where it's less obvious, and "pour" in effect means something closer to "because of". I suspect that is the specific use that the poster was interested in.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Note for example that in French it's perfectly idiomatic to say:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong> C'est <span style="text-decoration: underline;">pour</span> ça qu'il n'est pas venu.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>whereas in English it makes no sense to say "*It's for that that he didn't come". (An idiomatic translation might be: "That's why he didn't come.")</p> The difference between parce…tag:www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk,2011-11-10:3179028:Comment:582922011-11-10T00:15:18.276ZTymon Cameronhttp://www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk/profile/TymonCameron
<p>The difference between parce que and pour are actually incredibly easy. Parce que simply translates to English as 'because'. Pour simply translates to 'for'.<br/> Ex: Je achete une nouvelle ceinture <span style="text-decoration: underline;">pour</span> mon oncle.<br/>
Je dois aller au supermarche, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">parce que</span> j'ai besoin du lait.</p>
<p>The difference between parce que and pour are actually incredibly easy. Parce que simply translates to English as 'because'. Pour simply translates to 'for'.<br/> Ex: Je achete une nouvelle ceinture <span style="text-decoration: underline;">pour</span> mon oncle.<br/>
Je dois aller au supermarche, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">parce que</span> j'ai besoin du lait.</p> - "parce que" always introduc…tag:www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk,2011-11-09:3179028:Comment:582862011-11-09T22:30:48.255ZNeil Coffeyhttp://www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk/profile/NeilCoffey
<p>- "parce que" always introduces a clause (a "sentence in a sentence", that includes a verb)</p>
<p>- on the other hand, the object of "pour" is a noun phrase; in fact, "pour" is quite restricted in when it can be used to mean "because of"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So for example, compare the following two sentences which mean more or less the same thing:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Le premier ministre a démissionné [parce qu'il <span style="text-decoration: underline;">avait</span> des problèmes de…</strong></p>
<p>- "parce que" always introduces a clause (a "sentence in a sentence", that includes a verb)</p>
<p>- on the other hand, the object of "pour" is a noun phrase; in fact, "pour" is quite restricted in when it can be used to mean "because of"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So for example, compare the following two sentences which mean more or less the same thing:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Le premier ministre a démissionné [parce qu'il <span style="text-decoration: underline;">avait</span> des problèmes de santé].</strong></p>
<p><strong>Le premier ministre a démissionné pour [ raisons de santé ].</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Notice how in the first case, there's a "full sentence" inside the main sentence, with its own verb, avait. But in the second case, there's no verb inside the bit in brackets -- it's just a simple noun phrase.</p>
<p> </p>