Recently we were discussing why Spanish needs two verbs for ‘to be’, Ser and Estar. OK, so there were valid arguments for that, but please, someone tell me why they need two prepositions, Por and Para, for ‘for’?!
Thoughts welcome below, and for keen Spanish learners, we’ve been dissecting Por y Para in our latest Notes in Spanish episodes:
Click here to nail por y para once and for all!
Gracias por tu atención 
Well, I think that usually the use of por and para is pretty consistent, as each verb allows only one of the two prepositions, and they have slightly different meanings, with some exceptions (such as “me preocupo por ti”, where maybe “para” would have made more sense).
). I also speak Catalan as a first language and the use of prepositions is much more of a mess. As an example, in English if someone asks “Where are you?” you may answer “I’m at/in/on …”, depending on where you are. In spanish, “¿Dónde estás?” is always followed by “Estoy en…”.
The use of prepositions is basically arbitrary in every language I know of, but I find the Spanish rules somewhat simpler (maybe because it’s my mother tongue?
I don’t find the por/para rules so straightforward, but everything else about the Spanish more than makes up for it. Spelling, pronunciation, grammar… No wonder they say English is such a difficult language to learn, as it can’t seem to make up it’s mind about any of those things.
Por Para, Ser Estar…. Nothing is as bad as the pointless irregular verbs that plague languages.
Apropósito de nada, “por” come from the Latin “pro” and entered the Spanish language earlier than “para”, which is a corruption of it (it probably derives from the old word “pora”), and which wasn’t a word in its own right until the 13th century. So “por” has more right to be there because it’s been around longer. To make matters worse, they don’t only mean for – “Por” is often “by”, and “para” is often “to”: para hacer = “to do”. The other way of looking at it is so say “how lucky we English speakers are to have just one word for both “por” and “para”. It’s the revenge of Spanish for all those pesky English phrasal verbs.
@Jonathan: I haven’t had the chance to consult Lapesa, the highest authority on the history of Spanish language, but some of the uses of ‘por’ do come from the Latin preposition ‘pro’, as you’ve indicated, while others come from the Latin ‘per’
@Mateo-Being a native speaker you’ve obviously got the home team advantage, but it’s not so easy for non-natives. Gili Gaya in his book “Curso superior de sintaxis española” says about ‘por’ and ‘para’, "La diferencia es perfectamente clara para cualquier persona de nuestro idioma; pero los extranjeros, especialmente los de lengua inglesa, encuentran dificultad en distinguir estas dos preposiciones…los mismo ocurre con las conjunciones por que y para que†(§ 193, p. 256).
@Mateo-I think you’re probably right, generally speaking, but there are constructions where either ‘por’ or ‘para’ can be used, occasionally with the same meaning, but usually meaning something at least slightly different depending on which one you use and the context in which it is used.
For example: ‘Estoy por salir’ could mean a. you haven’t gone out yet; b. you’ve made preparations to go out, and will at some point; c. your going out is imminent; or d. you are in favor of going out. ‘Estoy para salir’ means ‘I’m leaving imminently’, but you could add more words that would change the immediacy of your going out.
Here’s a quote from Gili Gaya illustrating an example of ‘por’ and ‘para’ being used in the same construction, pero con matices diferentes. It’s from the same book, section, and page that I cited earlier. In fact, it immediate precedes the earlier quote: "En ‘me sacrifico por ti’ significamos ‘por tu causa’; en ‘me sacrifico para ti’, queremos decir ‘en tu favor o beneficio’â€
Comment from Anwar
@Mateo-I think you’re probably right, generally speaking, but there are constructions where either ‘por’ or ‘para’ can be used, occasionally with the same meaning, but usually meaning something at least slightly different depending on which one you use and the context in which it is used.
I agree, Anwar….in fact the meaning can sometimes be very different:
1. Ella camina por el parque : She’s walking through/by/along/around the park.
2. Ella camina para el parque: She’s walking to (toward) the park. (i.e. the park is her actual destination)
@Anwar: as far as you’re aware, is there a good, updated (and cheap) version of the Lapesa book you mentioned there? No need to go find out if the answer doesn’t come to you in <5 seconds!
I believe ‘por’ and ‘para’ is somehow related to very generic grammar in connection with active and passive voice. ‘Por’ corresponds with the passive voice and ‘para’ with the active voice. It is some kind of abstract direction indicator founded in the syntax, the logic of language and also thinking. In a similar way ‘a’ and ‘de’ corresponds with grammatical cases in Latin and is a topic that also causes difficulties. I would say the whole concept of ‘por’ and ‘par’ does not correspond with ‘for’ in English or ‘fí¼r’ in German or ‘pí¥’ in Danish.
‘Por’ and ‘for’ may look like cognates but they are definitely not. ‘Por’ is closest to ‘through’. If we replace ‘por’ with ‘through’ we get some rough meaning.
Para + verb is similar to ‘um’ in German, while ‘um’ is always followed by a verb. German, at least correct High-German is conceptually close to Latin and the syntax is also surprinsingly close to Spanish in many aspects. In English this form of para resembles for + ing-form, whereas both in Spanish and German it takes the infinitive and not the gerund.
I believe those constructs that take para can nearly always be extended by some kind of verb form, for instance:
el regalo para los ninos
-> el regalo para darselo a los ninos
el vuelo para Madrid
->el vuelo para ir a Madrid
I would say ‘por’ can never take a verb on the right side, at least none in active voice. However it corresponds somehow with passive voice, for instance:
el libro por Marta
-> el libro escrito por Marta
In comparison, por and para are related to the concept of cause and effect and not the application of the English preposition ‘for’ which is also used differently in English than in the other languages it is derived from.
*correction
Por can take a verb on the right hand side, e.g.
gracias por invitarme
but nonetheless it is logically a passive voice concept.
@Freddy – Well since just like Samuel Gili Gaya, Rafael Lapesa is dead, his book "Historia de la lengua española†is as updated as it’s going to get, though it has been reprinted as late as 2001. There are other well known authors writing about the history of Spanish, such as Ralph Penny, whom I believe is still alive, but Lapesa’s work is still definitive. I’m guessing that your best bet of finding a new copy cheap would be in Spain, if you live there. It looks like it sells for between 33 and 35 Euros new. Who knows, maybe you’ll get lucky and catch a fantastic sale some place.
http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-historia-de-la-lengua-espanola-9-ed/2900000084882
http://www.fnac.es/dsp/?servlet=extended.HomeExtendedServlet&Code1=1631456941&Code2=256&prodID=706605
http://www.elcorteingles.es/libros/producto/libro_descripcion.asp?CODIISBN=6521414216
For those of you who live or have lived in Spain, are university books stores typically open to members of the public? And if they are, are the books any less expensive than in regular bookstores?
Anwar: Sorry about the delay in replying. Many thanks for the advice there. I do live in Spain and yes, the university bookstores are open to anyone inside the building, students or not, but no, in my experience the books are no cheaper there than anywhere else.