0

In a speech last week, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s president, was in defiant mood. The economy, he boasted, had refuted the doomsayers, recovering faster from the currency crisis of 2018 than many expected. That’s true. But now Mr Erdogan risks endangering that recovery by rushing it. He has been eager to revive credit and economic growth to protect his popularity from new threats, including growing frustration with his rule from former allies. To that end, he sacked the governor of Turkey’s central bank in July, replacing him with Murat Uysal, who loyally slashed interest rates by 12.75 percentage points over the subsequent five meetings. The central bank may well cut them again at its meeting today, even though inflation has started to rise again (and the currency has resumed falling). If these trends continue, Turkey’s economy may eventually defy Mr Erdogan’s confidence. But its central bankers dare not do so.


Isn't risk and endanger the same meaning?

5
  • Yeah, good catch. It should be something like "risk destroying."
    – user105719
    Feb 19 '20 at 17:22
  • I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's pedantic / semantic nit-picking. Google Books has hundreds of written instances of to risk endangering, which is perfectly natural English. Feb 19 '20 at 17:40
  • @FumbleFingersReinstateMonica Well, I don't think it was the OP's intention to nitpick. Your comment and the one before yours combined would make a good enough answer.
    – Eddie Kal
    Feb 19 '20 at 18:13
  • @Eddie Kal: Over the years I've seen quite a few questions here and on ELU that are only being asked because some non-native speakers seem to think "repetition / tautology" is always somehow "incorrect". I could write a whole long explanation about why it's both syntactically and semantically credible to actually distinguish between the state of being endangered, and increasing the chances of being in that state. But I think it might be better to create (or find) a "generic" Answer pointing out that there's nothing wrong with repetition even if it's semantically irrelevant. Feb 19 '20 at 18:45
  • Let's consider migrating this question to ELU, where they will do a much better job at heaping contempt on the OP.
    – user105719
    Feb 19 '20 at 23:11
1

Hypothetical situation: Ms D has a drinking problem. She drives to a party and will drive home. There are both alcoholic and nonalcoholic drinks available. She is tempted to have an alcoholic drink, but if she does she won't be able to stop at just one and will end up drunk. If she drives home drunk she has a 50% chance of crashing her car and dying. She has a 50% chance of deciding to drink. If she doesn't drink she won't later crash her car (in this hypothetical situation only drunk people have accidents).

So if she doesn't drink she has a 0% chance of dying. If she does drink she has a 50% chance of dying. Overall she has a 25% chance of dying but she can freely choose between the 0% and 50% situations. Ms D risks endangering her life by drinking. It means that there are two actions with two separate risks.

In the sentence in the quoted article "But now Mr Erdogan risks endangering that recovery by rushing it." it is debatable whether there are two actions ("rushing" and "recovery") or only one ("rushing recovery"). However, "to risk endangering" is not necessarily redundant and to further analyse the sentence and its meaning is a matter of opinion and off topic for this site.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .