1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: French
  4. >
  5. "I come to save you."

"I come to save you."

Translation:Je viens pour te sauver.

March 25, 2013



Can someone explain why "pour" is needed here, please?


It's not - "Je viens te sauver" is not only correct, it actually sound more natural.


My last try "je viens pour te sauver" was correct, now it changed to " je viens vous sauver, very frustrating...


Why is "...pour vous sauver." wrong, anyone? Couldn't I be saving more than one person, like JC?


"vous" can be one or several persons, so "... pour vous sauver" would be right.


Why is pour needed in the informal version but not formal version?


Why is it ok if we leave out 'pour' in this sentence? I don't get it


"venir" is one of those verbs which can work with an infinitive without a preposition.

You may add "pour" with a slight change in meaning: je viens pour vous sauver (this is my goal, but no guarantee) vs je viens vous sauver (as if it were already a fact).


so adding 'pour' makes the sentence have a broader meaning, right?


For the one coming, yes. For the one in need of rescue, it could be considered as a restriction to only "trying" to save him/her....


I was only thinking from my perspective (as the reader of the sentence), but you just made me live the experience.
You never cease to amaze me, I'm so grateful.


"je viens de te sauver" was my incorrect answer. Does my translation mean, "I'm just come from saving you" ..."I've just saved you".?


Two constructions are to be considered: near past and near future.

  • near past = venir de + infinitive: je viens de te sauver = I have just saved you
  • near future = aller + infinitive: je vais te sauver = I am going to save you

If you mean "I am coming to save you" = je viens pour te sauver (pour = in order to)

If you mean "I am going there to save you" = j'y vais / je vais là-bas pour te sauver


Thank you - yes, my translation was I have just saved you - the near past - je viens de te sauver. Thank you for these examples - they really help! Verbs!


Actually, patlaf, «Je vais acheter ...» = "I am going to buy ..." is what is called "future proche", it's not at all the same construction. Is just like "going to <verb in infinitive>" is a form of expressing that something will happen soon, the construction "aller <verb in infinitive>" is a construction expressing the same thing.

I think the correct way to analyze this is by looking at the sentence roles of the words, and the questions they answer: What do I like? swimming why do I come? to save you. A native french dude (and a pretty skilled one, which pays attention to things and knows his french) just told me that "pour" is the correct form, even if 99% of the french (him included) will not use it in this case.


I think you misunderstood what I was saying... I wasn't saying anything was wrong with including pour in this sentence.

The full-infinitive form of verbs in English include the particle "to" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitive ).

I wasn't saying it's wrong to say pour=to, I was saying that it is a dangerous suggestion since the verb «sauver» could be translated as "to save" which would seem to eliminate «pour» altogether. I was backing this up with other sentences that have "to" but no need for «pour» - or any preposition - in French.

What I was trying to say is if you can replace "to" with "in order to" then you should put a «pour» in there, but I like your comparison of "swimming" vs "to save you".

Also, I'm well aware of the near future in French, but I disagree that it is a "completely different" construction. Just because it has implications about the future doesn't mean you disregard where infinitives go!


Indeed, probably a missunderstanding, I get your point about "pour" ~= "in order to", makes sense.

"Also, I'm well aware of the near future in French, but I disagree that it is a "completely different" construction. Just because it has implications about the future doesn't mean you disregard where infinitives go!"

Sure, it's just such a fixed form that you woulnd't ask yourself any questions about it. I am not asking myself any questions about how to translate it, or what prepositions I should put between the "aller" and the verb itself. it's a fixed form, you don't get to add or remove prepositions (like "pour"), which is why I don't think it's a good example for this situation, it can create confusion.


I've been through the thread, but I still haven't seen a clear answer: when do we need to use pour, and when should it be omitted? I've seen both on duolingo, but sometimes one of those constructions will be marked as incorrect. It's very inconsistent.


I did answer "Je viens te sauver" and it was marked correct, for what that's worth.


Yes, both answers are accepted (required, actually) on the multiple choice. I left the short version off and got it wrong.


Hey, whats the different between arrive and viens ? thanks


"Arrive" is like "to arrive" in English, is about reaching the destination (arriver a une ville, arriver a la gare, arriver au bureau), while "viens" is like "to come" in English, signifies the movement towards a point.

Tu viens a la gare demain? = Will you come to the station tomorrow? = you will come to the station, you will be moving yourself from where you are to the station. Can be replaced with "aller / tu vas" depending on where the movement is starting and where it ends ("to go" in English).

J'arrive a la gare a 10 heures = I arrive to the station at 10 o'clock = I will be reaching the final point of my movement, the station, at around 10 o'clock.

more nuances here: http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/arriver/5457?q=arriver#5431 http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/venir/81409?q=venir#80453


So i had this one twice in this round. The first i was translating from english to french and got counted wrong for leaving out "pour". The second one was a " choose the correct sentence" and the correct answer did not have "pour" in it.


Duo said 'je viens vous sauver' is correct. Why was my pour vous sauver incorrect, please? Help!


I don't know, because this answer is registered as correct...


So, to be abundantly clear: you could say either "je viens te/vous sauver" or "je viens pour te/vous sauver" and both would be correct--it's just a slightly different meaning?


Could you not also say "je viens TA sauver" if 'you' was feminine?


In short, no, it doesn't work because you don't make that sort of pronoun agree with gender except when it's the third person singular.

In less short:

You're confusing regular pronouns with possessive ones. You make the pronoun agree with the gender and number of an object when it's possessive (using the pronouns mon, ma, mes, ton, ta, tes, son, sa, ses, notre, nos, votre, vos, leur, leurs, mien, mienne, (and plural forms), tien, tienne, sien, sienne, nôtre, vôtre)

ta chemise, ton animal, tes crayons, son étui, mes enfants, notre maison, vos chiens

la voiture est la tienne, ces chats sont les miens, cet appartement est le sien

When the pronoun is used to describe who is performing an action, you use je, tu, il, elle, on, nous, vous, ils, and elles:

je cuisine, tu manges, il tombe, nous courons, vous criez, ils chantent

When the action is being done to someone, you use moi, toi, soi, lui, elle, nous, vous, or eux when the pronoun comes after both a verb and a preposition like à, de, pour, etc.:

c'est pour toi, il jette le ballon vers moi, l'oiseau est à lui

But reflexive verbs use me, te, le, la, les, se, nous, vous, lui, and leur:

je t'aime, tu viens me sauver, il va les donner, nous allons le lui dire, vous lui avez parlé

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