Is there any semantic difference between the two "risk" constructions shown below (both subtitles in a HRW report on the consequences of Russia's invasion of Ukraine)?
(a) Risks to children evacuated from institutions
(b) Risks for refugee children
Thank you in advance!
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Hi, MlleSim,
@MlleSim posted:(a) Risks to children evacuated from institutions
(b) Risks for refugee children
Both are correct, but I think there may be a different nuance of meaning. While "to" conveys the idea of direction (risks facing children), "for"— which usually introduces the beneficiary but does not, in this case, because of the negative connotation of "risks"—could be understood as meaning "concerning" or "regarding" (risks as far as children are concerned).
@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:While "to" conveys the idea of direction (risks facing children), "for"— which usually introduces the beneficiary but does not, in this case, because of the negative connotation of "risks"—could be understood as meaning "concerning" or "regarding" (risks as far as children are concerned).
Hm... yes, a very subtle nuance indeed. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Gustavo!
I fully agree with Gustavo's convincing explanation, but I'd like to share with you another perspective I came across in a book entitled "Points of Modern English Syntax by P.A. Erades. Dr. Wood said in the book: "When "to" and "for" are interchangeable, the statement with "to" is made from the point of view of the person it relates to, while with "for", the statement is made from the speaker's point of view."
For example, It was a useful lesson for him. It means the speaker thinks it was a useful lesson for him. If we say it was a useful lesson to him, we mean from his point of view, it was a useful lesson. When we say: "Let that be a lesson to you," we mean you should realize it was a lesson you must learn from it. If we say: "That should be a lesson for you." we mean whether or not you realize you should learn a lesson, it was a lesson you should learn from it."
@f6pafd posted:I fully agree with Gustavo's convincing explanation, but I'd like to share with you another perspective I came across in a book entitled "Points of Modern English Syntax by P.A. Erades. Dr. Wood said in the book: "When "to" and "for" are interchangeable, the statement with "to" is made from the point of view of the person it relates to, while with "for", the statement is made from the speaker's point of view."
Thank you so much for this excellent contribution, f6pafd! This is a very satisfying clarification of one possible nuance between "to" and "for" in cases where they seem more or less interchangeable. If you happen to have an electronic version of the relevant section in "Points of Modern English Syntax", please include it here as a link/photo! 
unfortunately, there is no electronic version available on-line. Even Amazon does not carry it and says it is out of print.
Hi, MlleSim and f6pafd,
If you join the Internet Archive, which is for free, you can, subject to availability, borrow books for one hour (as you can see further below). Here is the interesting passage f6pafd has mentioned in his posting:
Hi, Gustavo. Thank you very much for your information.
I second f6pafd! Thank you so much for the tip and for adding these screenshots to the thread.
