1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: French
  4. >
  5. "Il est ici pour rester."

"Il est ici pour rester."

Translation:He is here to stay.

January 7, 2013



I typed he is here to rest, and wrong


Also interested in why "to rest" is wrong


Because "rester" is a false cognate. It means to stay, not to rest. Not as bad as "blesser", which means to hurt, not to bless as an english speaker might guess.


To rest meaning to relax you use 'se reposer'. To rest meaning to stay where it is (she rested the spoon on the table) you would use rester. In this case it appears to be a person going to stay where they are so 'rester' is used.


Does "il est ici pour rester" carry the alternate meanings of "he is here to reside" or "he is here permanently" as "he is here to stay" does in English?


I'm not a native speaker, but I tried to find an answer to this. I think "il est ici pour rester" means "he is here for a stay (but not permanently)". And "he/it is here to stay (permanently)" is "il est là pour rester". Can a native speaker confirm?

Here's a link with some examples: http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-french/here%20to%20stay


I was going to ask the same question. :)


isn't 'rester' mean 'to stay' and if so why is there the pour? I had written he is here for to stay which is wrong and i know does not really make sense in English.


Pour is used with the infinitive to indicate purpose or aim. To reiterate what @Ariaflame said, one of the best things you can do for your French is to drop the idea that prepositions are always translated in isolation as some one thing, e.g. pour = for, dans = in, à = to etc. They often have to be considered in a grammatical context and cannot be translated well without that context.


Actually it is fairly common in parts of Scotland "I'm going down the shops for to get the paper" The thing to remember is prepositions can be used very differently in different languages and there isn't a one to one mapping of meaning.


For the record, that is a regional quirk. In most cases you should not have multiple prepositions next to each other in English. (Although there are exceptions. 'Near to' for example, which functions basically as if it was a single preposition.) But 'of to', 'for to', and so on are not used as standard, and would sound wrong to most.


Who the heck says "near to?" That's wrong.


I think it is because the "to" implies "in order to"


he is to stay here.isnt this also valid?


"He is to stay here" implies an obligation, necessity, or even a future action: "He must stay here" or "He will stay here." The French sentence in question "Il est ici pour rester" refers to purpose.


Does this sentence translate idiomatically to "It is here to stay (for good)?" If not, how would you translate it to French to carry the same meaning?


"For good" actually maps very close to French: "pour de bon." You can possibly make it more concrete by saying "pour toujours" or "forever."


Rester and attendre are really easy 'traps'. Just be aware!


I'm confused about why "he is to stay here" is incorrect


C'est très clair, notre amour est ici pour rester

Learn French in just 5 minutes a day. For free.