Pour vs Pendant: French Duration Prepositions Explained
Of the French time prepositions, this pair causes the subtlest confusion because both words genuinely can mean “for” in an English sentence. Pour and pendant aren’t random synonyms, though — the difference comes down to whether you’re announcing a plan or describing something already happening or finished.
The short version
- Pour = for, a PLANNED or INTENDED future duration — the length of time you expect something to last.
- Pendant = for/during, a duration that’s already happening, already finished, or being described as a fact rather than a plan.
Ask whether you’re stating an intention (“I’m going for two weeks”) or describing a fact about a duration (“I lived there for two years”). Intentions take pour; facts take pendant.
When to use pour
- A planned trip duration: Je pars pour deux semaines. (I’m leaving for two weeks — the planned length.)
- An announced intended stay: On va à Rome pour un mois. (We’re going to Rome for a month.)
- Used with verbs of departure or arrival, projecting forward: Il vient pour trois jours. (He’s coming for three days.)
- Rare outside travel/stay contexts — pour’s duration use is fairly narrow.
- Announcing a work assignment length: Je suis engagé pour six mois. (I’m hired for six months.)
When to use pendant
- A completed duration: J’ai vécu à Berlin pendant cinq ans. (I lived in Berlin for five years.)
- An ongoing duration described as fact: Il travaille pendant huit heures par jour. (He works for eight hours a day.)
- During a specific period: Pendant l’été, il fait chaud. (During summer, it’s hot.)
- The default, general-purpose choice for “for” in most non-travel-plan contexts.
- Reporting how long a past event lasted: La réunion a duré pendant deux heures. (The meeting lasted for two hours.)
Quick chart
| Pour (planned/future) | Pendant (fact/completed) |
|---|---|
| je pars pour un an (announcing a plan) | j’ai vécu là pendant un an (stating a fact) |
| Narrow use — mostly travel/stays | General-purpose “for/during” |
| Forward-looking intention | Any time frame — past, present, habitual |
| Doesn’t guarantee actual outcome | Reports what actually happened |
Why pour has such a narrow lane
It surprises a lot of learners that pour, despite being one of the most common French prepositions overall, has a genuinely narrow role when it comes to duration specifically. Outside of announcing how long a trip or stay is intended to last, pour essentially doesn’t compete with pendant at all — you wouldn’t say j’ai étudié pour trois heures to mean “I studied for three hours” as a simple fact; that has to be pendant trois heures. The pour-duration construction survives almost entirely in this one specific pattern: a verb of movement or stay (partir, aller, venir, rester) followed by pour and a length of time, framing that length as the traveler’s stated plan or intention at the moment of departure, independent of whether the trip actually ends up lasting that long. If your friend says je pars pour deux semaines and then extends the trip to three, the original pour statement was still grammatically correct — it captured the plan at the time, not a guaranteed outcome. This is different from most other uses of pour (purpose, recipient, exchange), which are far broader; the duration sense is the outlier, tightly scoped to travel and stay announcements.
Mistakes learners make
- Using pour for a general fact about duration outside travel contexts: j’ai travaillé pour cinq heures should be j’ai travaillé pendant cinq heures.
- Using pendant to announce a planned trip length: je pars pendant deux semaines sounds like a report of fact rather than an intention — pour fits the announcing-a-plan context better.
- Forgetting that pour’s duration sense is narrow and trying to extend it to any “for” + time expression, when pendant is almost always the safer general default.
- Confusing this pour with its far more common meanings (purpose, recipient) and assuming duration is its primary use — it’s actually a minor, specific one.
- Assuming a pour-announced duration guarantees the actual outcome, when it only reports the plan at the time it was stated.
Frequently asked questions
What’s the difference between pour and pendant for duration?
Pour is used specifically to announce a planned or intended duration, usually with travel (je pars pour un mois). Pendant is the general-purpose word for “for/during” a duration, whether past, ongoing, or habitual.
Do you say je vais à Paris pour trois jours or pendant trois jours?
Pour trois jours, since this is announcing the planned length of a trip. Pendant would sound more like a factual report after the fact rather than a stated intention.
Can pour be used outside of travel contexts for duration?
Rarely. Pour’s duration sense is mostly confined to announcing travel or stay plans; for general statements about how long something lasted, pendant is almost always the correct choice.
What’s the most common way to say “for” with a duration in French?
Pendant, by far. It covers completed durations, ongoing habitual durations, and specific periods, while pour is reserved for the narrower planned-trip-length use.
Is it correct to say j’ai vécu ici pour cinq ans?
No, that should be j’ai vécu ici pendant cinq ans. Pour doesn’t fit here because this is a factual statement about a completed duration, not an announced plan.
Does pour always relate to time?
No — pour’s time/duration use is actually one of its rarer functions. Its far more common uses are purpose (“in order to”), recipient (“for you”), and exchange, covered separately from time expressions.
Does pour work for a job assignment length?
Yes. Je suis engagé pour six mois (I’m hired for six months) uses pour the same way it’s used for travel — announcing a stated, intended length rather than reporting a completed fact.
This narrow pour-versus-pendant distinction is exactly the kind of nuance that separates a fluent speaker from a careful translator. corrector.co’s free French checker flags pour used outside its narrow duration lane.
