"I come to save you."

Translation:Je viens pour te sauver.

March 25, 2013



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

March 25, 2013


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

May 15, 2013


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

January 29, 2015


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

April 15, 2013


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

April 16, 2013


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

May 5, 2014


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

August 29, 2014


"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).

August 30, 2014


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

August 30, 2014


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....

August 31, 2014


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.

August 31, 2014


"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".?

April 3, 2015


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

April 3, 2015


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!

April 4, 2015


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.

April 22, 2013


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!

April 22, 2013


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.

April 29, 2014


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.

January 25, 2014


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

March 8, 2014


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

July 30, 2014


Hey, whats the different between arrive and viens ? thanks

April 28, 2014


"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

April 29, 2014



April 29, 2014


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.

June 29, 2014


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

August 25, 2014


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

August 25, 2014


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?

January 24, 2015


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

February 19, 2015


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

February 19, 2015
Learn French in just 5 minutes a day. For free.