"for" or "of"

[Douglas G. Wilson]

>I am interested in its usage in a medical context.  Why would "medical" make
>a difference--if at all?

A question which is difficult to answer decisively for a particular case.
Certain usages tend to concentrate themselves within certain fields and
professions, as well as in certain locations or social groups. It is easy
to see how this concentration develops in general: for example, if just a
few lawyers -- but almost nobody else! -- say "XYZ", then "XYZ" may be
perceived as "lawyer talk", and other lawyers will start using it (to sound
'professional'), and others who want to sound like lawyers will start using
it, and so on.

It is my impression that "a risk of" might be preferred over "a risk for"
even in medical contexts -- but maybe only by a ratio of two to one, while
in other contexts it might be fifty to one (just casual guesses).

In another grammatical context -- "[be] at risk of/for" -- I believe "for"
is at least about equal to "of". Maybe this has some relevance since
medical talk prefers "at [increased] risk" etc. Perhaps this might arise
from use of "for" in other expressions, e.g.:

He's a setup for an MI.
He's heading for an MI.
He's a candidate for an MI.
etc.

Then:

He's at high risk for an MI.

["MI" = "myocardial infarction" = "heart attack".]

Just my casual notions. Probably there are a few papers somewhere on this
sort of thing.

-- Doug Wilson