Pour vs Parce que

[Yan Fang]

In what context and when should we use [pour] and [parce que]? It is rather confusing as to when to use [pour] and [parce que], and in some examples, it seems like both can be used..?

[Neil Coffey]

- "parce que" always introduces a clause (a "sentence in a sentence", that includes a verb)

- 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"

 

So for example, compare the following two sentences which mean more or less the same thing:

 

Le premier ministre a démissionné [parce qu'il avait des problèmes de santé].

Le premier ministre a démissionné pour [ raisons de santé ].

 

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.

 

[Tymon Cameron]

The difference between parce que and pour are actually incredibly easy. Parce que simply translates to English as 'because'. Pour simply translates to 'for'.
Ex: Je achete une nouvelle ceinture pour mon oncle.
Je dois aller au supermarche, parce que j'ai besoin du lait.

[Neil Coffey]

Yes, sort of: pour usually 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 pour in French and for 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.

 

Note for example that in French it's perfectly idiomatic to say:

 

  C'est pour ça qu'il n'est pas venu.

 

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.")