# afin que/in order to



## ThomasK

Something I was reminded of while exploring goals (and ends, purposes): in order to express purpose I can see the word *'fin'/'einde'* (end) turn up literally as some kind of extended conjunction (complex conjunction). So how do you translate the English complex conjunction: *'in order (for* x) to' + inf. + ... (or + subclause)

Dutch: _*ten einde ... t*e_ + inf. 
French: *afin de* + inf. (plus: afin que + subclause, I believe)
German: _damit_ + subclause [so no 'end' here] (_with that_, reminding me of the English _in that_)

I can't see an English alternative containing 'end' or anything the like...


----------



## jazyk

Most common in Portuguese: para/a fim de (plus infinitive), a fim de que/para que (plus subjunctive).


----------



## ThomasK

So _fim_ again! Great. 

I am just wondering whether FR _pour_/ P _para_ could (in-)directly be linked with purpose and end. I would not be astonished if they referred to a far-away end, just like the English _for_ :_ I am leaving *for* England, je pars *pour* l'Angleterre_, whereas we say in Dutch: _ik vertrek *naar *E_, I am going (lit. leaving) to E.


----------



## apmoy70

In Greek:

Preposition and adverb «ώστε» ('oste); Classical adverb «ὥστε» ('hōstĕ)--> _so as, and so, therefore, in order to_. Compound; Classical demonstrative adverb «ὡς» (hōs)--> _like as, just as_ (PIE base *jō-/*jā, pron. _where_) + enclitic particle and conjunction «τε» (tĕ)--> _and_ (PIE base *kʷe, _enclitic and_; Mycenaean ϙε (*qe with koppa).
The most common construction in Modern Greek is «ώστε» + subjunctive


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks,Apmoy, but could you comment on the reference to the PIE base? It seems to refer to places whereas I do not see a link between _like_ or likeness and place, or not right now...


----------



## jazyk

> I am just wondering whether FR _pour_/ P _para_ could (in-)directly be linked with purpose and end.


Right you are.


----------



## Rallino

In Turkish everything is reversed.

in order to <verb> XYZ --> XYZ <verb (in infinitive)> için*** / amacıyla*** / adına***

*** for
** *with the goal of
*** in the name of

An example: *Dinlenmek amacıyla eve geldim.*
_(lit. I came home with the goal of resting.)
_


----------



## ThomasK

Quite interesting. Could you tell me more about *için*, for ? Could you compare it to the English _I am leaving *for *South Africa? In the name of _seems strange for referring to goals,  but I suppose it is  like that, and cannot be accounted for_. _


----------



## Rallino

Not for with the verb "to leave", but we can say: Güney Afrika için yola çıktım. _(I hit the road for South Africa)_


----------



## ThomasK

Well, that seems quite similar, though the words are different. Thanks. Direction is suggested by the word, I think. I think it is not a coincidence that English has both to leave for and to strive for, both indicating direction...


----------



## hui

*Finnish:
*
Two ways:

_*-kse*_ suffix (to a verb) + possessive suffix, or
_*jotta*_ (= "so that") and usually [?] the verb in conditional case
Example:* in order to* get it *you* must


_saada*ksesi* sen *sinun* täytyy
_
_*jotta* saisit sen, *sinun* täytyy
_
I would use the former in writing but (some colloquial variant of) the latter in speech.


----------



## ThomasK

This is a very intriguing phenomenon, but I know Finnish is often intriguing ;-). Would you have any idea (or even a hunch) why a possessive suffix is used (and added to a verb !)? Is there any link between jotta and the indefinite pronouns like _jotain_? I suppose not, but just asking...


----------



## hui

> Would you have any idea (or even a hunch) why a possessive suffix is used (and added to a verb !)?



Perhaps because the verb is an "A-infinitive" in translative case (suffix: _*-ksi*_, or with possessive suffix: _*-kse*_).

 Maybe this page helps (in Finnish): http://kaino.kotus.fi/visk/sisallys.php?p=514



> Is there any link between jotta and the indefinite pronouns like _jotain_? I suppose not, but just asking...



_Jotta_ and pronouns _joka, joku, jokin (, jotain), ..._ share a common root _(jo-)_. _Jotta_ is assumed to have originally meant "in which way (manner)".

Interesting... _jotain_ (or _jotakin)_ in not an entry in any of my Finnish dictionaries. It seems that the nominative is _jokin_ while _jota(k)in_ is partitive.


----------



## mataripis

Tagalog: 1.) Nang sa gayon ay   2.) Upang sa gayon ay 3.) para naman


----------



## ThomasK

But could you explain the words, the roots in it ?


----------



## ThomasK

I am copying an answer from a more recent thread here: 


bibax said:


> Czech uses the present conditional in the dependent clause:
> 
> Přestěhoval jsem se do Francie, a*bych se (na)učil* francouzsky.
> (učit se _imperf_., naučit se _perf._)
> 
> something like: I moved to France that *I should learn* French.


I would like to hear more about the precise meaning of _*abych*_... 

And another one: 


AutumnOwl said:


> _*Swedish:*
> Jag flyttade till Frankrike *för att* lära mig franska_ - for to, in order to
> _Jag tog bilen *så att* jag kunde handla på vägen_ - I took the car in order to be able to shop on my way - so that, in order to



Apmoy added something with regard to Greek: 


apmoy70 said:


> Greek:
> 
> In formal speech I'd use *«ώστε»* [ˈoste] --> _so as, for to, in order that_.
> In the vernacular I'd use *«για να»* [ʝa na] --> _so as, so that, in order that_.
> 
> Etymology:
> MoGr conj. and prep. *«για»* [ʝa] after synizesis from the Byz. prep. *«διά» di**á*: *«δγιά» dʝá* > *dʝá* < Classical adv. and prep. *«διά» dĭắ* --> _in two, apart, through_ (PIE *dis-, _apart_ cf Lat. dis-; Alb. ç-, _apart_).
> MoGr conj. and particle *«να»* [na], aphetic form of Byz. conj. *«ἱνά» iná* < Classical conj. *«ἵνα» hínă* --> _that, in order that_ (with unclear origin).


----------



## 810senior

In Japanese, we use ために_tameni_, consisted of _tame_(sake) and _ni_(dative particle, to, for). *particle _ni _can be omitted.
e.g. 学校にいくため(に)家を出た。_gakkou ni iku tameni ie wo deta_ : I left home in order to go to school.

We can also say this by using a single particle に and the verb. (this way is more general in daily speech, in this case, ni *cannot *be omitted)
e.g. あなたに会いにきたのよ。_anata ni ai ni kitanoyo_ : I came see you.(=I came in order to see you)
*ai:inf. au(to see), the form of connecting to some particles.
*ni:a dative particle.


----------



## bibax

ThomasK said:


> I would like to hear more about the precise meaning of _*abych*_...


Czech:

In fact *abych* are two words customarily written together (probably as the stress is on the 1st syllable a-, -bych is unstressed):
*
a-* = merely a conjunction (the precise meaning is not important in this special case);
*-bych* = a conjugated form of the verb býti (= to be);
(sing. *bych  bys  by* plur. *bychom byste by *OCz. bychú)

Originally it was the aorist of the verb býti, the only aorist preserved in modern Czech. We use it as an auxiliary verb forming present and past conditional.

(já) bych se učil francouzsky = I should learn French;
(on) by se učil francouzsky = he would learn French;
(my) bychom se učili francouzsky = we should learn French;
etc.

Přestěhovali jsme se do Francie, a*bychom se učili* francouzsky. = We moved to France in order to learn French. (...[that] *we should learn*...)


----------



## ThomasK

I suppose the 'a' could be something like a general subclause marker, the way we have _omdat, doordat, opdat_, etc. Quite some conjunctions in Dutch are compounds of this 'dat' and a preposition. On the other hand this use of 'to be' here is not that strange either: French _soit_, English _be it _(if I am not mistaken), Dutch _tenzij _(t-en-zij, if it is not/ if it were not) use a con- or subjective. 
Combining the two seems a little bit different. But maybe the conditional (I think it should be _so that we would learn _above) can be associated with goals, though I'd think a conjunctive would be more natural: _it be like this_, _het zij/ weze zo _[_Amen _in Eng. and Dutch].


----------



## Encolpius

ThomasK said:


> Something I was reminded of while exploring goals (and ends, purposes): in order to express purpose I can see the word *'fin'/'einde'* (end) turn up literally as some kind of extended conjunction (complex conjunction). So how do you translate the English complex conjunction: *'in order (for* x) to' + inf. + ... (or + subclause)
> .



*Hungarian *--- no link between the "end" and the Hungarian "hogy" [that].


----------



## bibax

ThomasK said:


> I suppose the 'a' could be something like a general subclause marker, the way we have _omdat, doordat, opdat_, etc. Quite some conjunctions in Dutch are compounds of this 'dat' and a preposition.
> .


You are probably right. The precise meaning of the 'a' is quite obscure in this case.


ThomasK said:


> But maybe the conditional (I think it should be _so that we would learn _above) can be associated with goals, though I'd think a conjunctive would be more natural: _it be like this_, _het zij/ weze zo _[_Amen _in Eng. and Dutch].


Czech has no sub-/conjunctive. Instead we use the conditional (present or past).

Nemám psa, který *by štěkal* (cond.). = No tengo un perro, que *ladre* (subj.).

Now I realized that the *abych. abys, aby,* ... is more general.

Přišel, aby štěkal. = He came in order to bark.

Chci, aby štěkal. = I want him to bark.


----------



## Gavril

ThomasK said:


> This is a very intriguing phenomenon, but I know Finnish is often intriguing ;-). Would you have any idea (or even a hunch) why a possessive suffix is used (and added to a verb !)?



In this construction, the possessive suffix indicates the subject of the action:

_tehdäkse*ni* _= ”for *me* to do”, _tehdäkse*si* _”for *you (sg.)* to do”, _tehdäkse*nne* _”for *you (pl.)* to do”, etc.


----------



## mataripis

mataripis said:


> Tagalog: 1.) Nang sa gayon ay   2.) Upang sa gayon ay 3.) para naman


In order to inform them earlier- para mapagsabihan sila ng maaga pa./ upang maaga pa ay mahudyatan na sila/ Nang masabihan na sila hanggat maaga pa.   In order in these sentences has 3 forms - para/upang/ nang. They can be used interchangeably.


----------



## ThomasK

But what do they mean exactly ?


----------

