English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is the phrase unexpected repercussion unnecessary redundantly repetitive?

When I looked up repercussion I see that unexpected is implicit in its meaning. Should I prefer to say unexpected consequence?

share|improve this question
up vote 7 down vote accepted

No. You can have expected repercussions. For example, if you steal something, one of the reasonably expected repercussions is that you'll find yourself in court, if not jail, because of your action. What might be an unexpected repercussion is that you are wrestled to the ground by an alert rugger player who sees you stealing the object.

share|improve this answer

It does not seem particularly redundant to me, and I do not think it is a blatant tautology. In addition, at least one dictionary (NOAD) does not define it as unexpected, but as unintended, which is not the same.

share|improve this answer

Merriam Webster defines it as a "reciprocal action; a widespread, indirect, or unforseen effect." I don't think it's necessarily redundant.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.