"pour" meaning "pouvoir"?

Question

Content warning: Repeated mention of suicide.

---

In the following passage from a novel¹, the narrator is a seven year old boy who has just been separated permanently from his suicidal mother, by Québec's child welfare social service department.

On nous a définitivement séparés. Pour ma sécurité et son équilibre. Cela m’a paru aussi logique que d’interdire la neige en hiver ou la sloche au printemps. Je savais bien, moi, qu’elle ne mourrait jamais et qu’il n’y avait que ses berceuses pour m’apaiser.

DeepL translates the last sentence to:

I knew that she would never die and that only her lullabies could soothe me.

---

If I were to translate "et qu’il n’y avait que ses berceuses pour m’apaiser" literally, I would come up with:

there were only her lullabyes for soothing me.

This translation doesn't make sense in the context of the sentence, and so DeepL's translation:

only her lullabies could soothe me

is much more likely to be correct. But I'm having trouble understanding how DeepL created its translation. I'm not sure if it's a use of "pour" that I dont' understand, or if instead the author is writing in a poetic way that needs to be re-interpretated to mean something different.

If I wanted to translate DeepL's translation, I might use "pouvoir" instead of "pour": "et qu’il n’y avait que ses berceuses qui pouvaient m’apaiser."

The literal translation of the "pour" version ("There were only her lullabies for soothing me") could make sense in a different context. For example, it would make sense in this context: "My mother didn't have enough money when I was a baby. There wasn't enough food to soothe me. She couldn't even afford a pacifier to soothe me. There were only her lullabyes for soothing me".

1. How can I understand "Il n’y avait que ses berceuses pour m’apaiser" to mean "Only her lullabyes could soothe me"? Is it because "pour" has a meaning close to "pouvoir" here? Or is it because DeepL is re-interpreting poetic langauge? Or is it for some other reason? (And as always, can you give additional example sentences that might illustrate the concept I'm not understanding?)

---

^{1. From "La Bête à sa Mère" by David Goudreault, Chapter 1}

Answer 1

The word "pour" express the intent rather than the ability.

The idea of the french text is that she sings lullabies in order to soothe me. However the context of the text, and the il n’y avait que construct imply that soothing me is a difficult action to overcome, and that "singing a lullaby" is the way she found to actually achieve "soothing me".

That construction implies an ellipsis of the verb of the subordinate proposition: il n’y avait que ses berceuses pour (réussir à) m'apaiser. A literal translation would be an heavy construction like: there would only be her lullabies that would (be able to) soothe me.

I would personally translate the sentence by:

I knew that she would never die and that only her lullabies would soothe me.

Answer 2

The typical pattern is “Il n'y a que [personne X] pour [action A]”, meaning that this particular person is the only one who performs the specified action. X can be a specific person or a specific type of persons. Occasionally, as is the case here, the statement can be about a thing rather than a person. There is no particular connotation of intent or ability: X is the only person who does A, regardless of whether others don't want to, or aren't able, or don't think of it, or any other reason.

I can't think of a more general pattern where pour has this particular meaning. I can't find it the breakdown of the Trésor de la langue française. I think I would put it under the heading (I) (exchange, substitution, equivalence) (because it's a better fit than (II) destination or (III) causality), but under a separate second-level heading.

Il n'y a que lui pour dire une chose pareille.   (No one but him would say such a thing.)

Il n'y a que lui pour oser présenter (…) une œuvre « impossible » (…). (auteur non identifié, Musée Fabre)   (Only he would dare show (…) such an “impossible” work.)

Il n'y a qu'un fou pour espérer changer le monde. (Scylla)   (Only a fool would hope to change the world.)

Il n'y a qu'une femme pour me redonner goût au travail. (Georges Perros)   (Only a woman can make me feel up to working again.)

Answer 3

pour followed by an infinitive:

This is defined in the Académie Française dictionary as follows:

– Suivi d’un nom ou d’un verbe à l’infinitif désignant ce que l’on recherche, le but que l’on veut atteindre. [...]

(That is similar to what is called a to-infinitive in English0

Here are the examples it gives with a verb:

Semer pour récolter. Il vient pour vous aider. J’ai fait tout mon possible pour gagner son amitié. Je me tais pour ne pas vous fatiguer ou, litt., pour ne vous fatiguer pas. Je dis cela pour plaisanter. Pour ne vous rien déguiser.

In English, this would be: He is coming to help you. I'm doing everything possible to be friends with him. I'm keeping quiet to not tire you. I'm saying that to make a joke or to be funny. To not hide anything from you [etc.]

Dictionnaire de l'Académie Française

So this: Je savais bien, moi, qu’elle ne mourrait jamais et qu’il n’y avait que ses berceuses pour m’apaiser.

becomes: I did know she would never die and there were only her lullabies to soothe me.

Alternative: and only her lullabies would soothe me. But to show the pour as to, the first version I give uses the "to". However, this is not an issue of writing, and not showing the grammar comparatively as the first translation does.

Rappel: pour + un verbe à l’infinitif **désigne ce que l’on

recherche, le but que l’on veut atteindre

"pour" ne peut pas être remplacé par le verb pouvoir.

Par contre, on peut tout réécrire: "qu’il n’y avait que ses berceuses qui pouvaient m’apaiser."

mais alors, le sens change.

qui pouvaient m'apaiser=that would soothe me pour m'apaiser=to soothe me