I am puzzled by the usage of 'obliged' and 'obligated'. What's the difference between the two words, which seem to share the same noun form “obligation”?
I could think of two sentences as below:
(1) John Doe is not obligated to do this.
(2) Experts felt obliged to investigate.
What if obligated and obliged are exchanged in the examples? any difference meaning?
Thanks
We (i.e. the creators of Pain in The English) developed a series of iPhone apps to teach preschool kids how to recognize letters and words. (My wife developed the characters and I did the coding.) Our own 4-year old daughter has been enjoying them. They are now available on Apple's App Store. You can search for "bitskis" on your iPhone, or visit the official website at bitskis.com.
If you have kids and own an iPhone, please check it out. It's $2.
i always thought obliged was more in the way of the person wanting to have to do something, and obligated is you just have to do something…does that make sense…? give me a break, it's late.
From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage page 675
"obligated" remains in Scottish and American use, but has dropped out of British English. Both "obliged" and "obligated" mean "being constrained legally or morally". When the constraint is applied by physical force or circumstances, "obliged" is used. "obligated" is also used to been "indebted for a service or favour".
Hi I always thought that obligated meant you did not have a choice and obliged was you politly proceeded to the demand .
Please oblige as a respond ,
I am obligated to take you in , the prisonner obliged.
that 's my understanding
As a matter of fact, "obligated" is related to something ou have to do, regardless of your interest or not in doing this. "Obliged" has to do with your moral responsability. "Obliged" is something you need to do because you would feel uncomfortable in not doing. "Obligated" is something that make you feel uncomfortable in doing as it is something someone else has decided you should do.
Greetings everyone, I'm new here but I love studying the English language, informally of course. Hope you don't mind me chipping in.
Oxford English Dictionary is my source, the CD version 3.0.
Apparently both are to bind by oath, law, or duty. There is however a distinction.
Though the verb specifically, obligate is a little bit less lucid, "To bind round, fasten up". With the connotation of oath or law.
While the verb oblige is specifically said "to bind up a a person to an oath."
Oblige is also cited earlier, 1297 in OF and it has a wider umbrella of secondary meanings.
Obligate sounds like a subsequent development to oblige from possibly improper (or not) later reinterpretation of the Latin obligat-
I always thought oblige just sounded more formal and polite. :)
It seems to me that the only difference lies in the degree of formalness.
A tangentially interesting related adjective from microbiology: obligate, as in "obligate anaerobe" (a bacterium which requires an oxygen-free environment to live).
Also interesting, obligate,as an adjective, would be pronounced OB-li -git (with the last syllable including a schwa as the vowel sound), not OB-li-gate (last syllable rhyming with eight)
To feel "obligated" has a connotation of being morally required to do something you don't want to do.
To feel "obliged" has a connotation of being morally required to do something you DO want to do.
Ex: "Much obliged!" is kind of like, "My pleasure!"
Any help? ^_^
My sincere thanks to all you guys! I consulted some English lawyers and I think I embarrassed or amused them with this question. Quite delicate nuance between the two. Enlightened by your contributions, I feel like making more research in this regard and that's fun!
Thank you again!
This is one of those silly pairs that was introduced twice, one via French and once via Latin.
I was once a legal proofreader/ copy editor in the US. We snagged the word "obliged" (in a multimillion-dollar legal contract) where it should have been "obligated." We were thanked profusely by the attorneys involved, who said it saved their hides.
I covered this subject today on my language blog Belletra (www.belletra.com/blog), with liberal links to this thread. Special thanks to most recent poster Polly, with whose quote I concluded my post.
Wrong…
The correct word to use is obliged in all circomstances although both words mean exactly the same. Obligated is a redundant word made up by Americans. 'Obliged' is asociated with negro deferance – 'Much obliged sir' – and has been avoided by white Americans since the turn of the 20th century. I blame Mark Twain!
"obligated" was not invented by Americans. Let's get our facts right.
Here's my summary of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage page 675 again, since no one seems to be reading it:
"obligated" remains in Scottish and American use, but has dropped out of British English. Both "obliged" and "obligated" mean "being constrained legally or morally". When the constraint is applied by physical force or circumstances, "obliged" is used. "obligated" is also used to been "indebted for a service or favour".
I have had this same question for a long time. Obliged is used repetatively in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice where obligated is never used. Maybe this can help you in some way.
John – as if anyone will trust what you say when your distinguishing between Scotland and Britain. Scotland is part of Britain.
Rita – you can't even spell prisoner.
BTW, the use of "your" instead of you're was intended… it's ironic.
Yes, Scotland is part of Great Britain, but Scottish English is not the same as British English.
I should think British English encompasses Scottish English…? Do you mean South-east England English (or the 1950's BBC English/Received Pronounciation, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A657560)
(and being a Scot in London, what do I speak?!?)
As for obliged/obligated – the latter strikes me as odd in usage and I can't help but think it does sound like an 'Americanism'!
Obligated – one must do something
Obliged – a feeling one I must do something (but could legally argue out of it – see above comment from Polly!).
oops, I meant pronunciation, of course :)
"British English" has two interpretations, as explained by The Oxford Companion to the English Language:
"Broadly understood, British English is the English language as used in Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland…
Narrowly understood, British English is the form of standard English used in Britain at learge or more specifically in English, and more specifically still in south-eastern England."
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage is clearly using the latter interpretation.
I've been wondering abut this…when was obligated first used? I was always under the impression that the two words meant the same thing, and that obligated was an 'americanism'. Perhaps this was once true and over time, and as obligated has become more widely used, it has taken on a definite and separate meaning to obliged?
As an aside, 'British-English' generally refers to 'English-English' [ie received pronunciation], and shouldnt be used to include Scottish terms. As i understand it, this is because in the days of the British Empire, the words English and British were generally given the same meaning in popular usage, which is something that carries on to some extent to this day – I do it myself in fact. When someone describes a thing as British i generally take that to mean English. Which doesn't always go down well, as I'm an Englishman in Scotland.
KraJ, the first cite for "obligated" in the OED is from Richardson's "Pamela" – so it is not an Americanism.
I agree with Tom. Not only that, but it saves space! :)
John just crushed that one hater.
As a Scotsman (of over half a century old) I’ve never in my entire life heard the word “obligated” until a few years ago. The word is “obliged”. “Obligated” is a word created by people (I believe in the U.S. but can’t say for sure) who simply had no idea that the word is “obliged”!
‘Obligate’ is not an Americanism, nor is it a recent coinage or an unnecessary variant of ‘oblige.’ Merriam-Webster gives the derivation of ‘obligate’ as:
Latin ‘obligatus,’ past participle of ‘obligare’
The etymology of ‘oblige’ is given as:
Middle English, from Anglo-French ‘obliger,’ from Latin ‘obligare,’
M-W dates ‘obligate’ to 1533, ‘oblige’ to the 14th century. For you history buffs, that’s well before the English language arrived in the New World. (Interestingly, M-W dates ‘obligated’ and ‘obligation’ to the 14th century, which means that ‘obligate’ must also be that old.)
Both are (primarily) transitive verbs, and while they can be used interchangeably in some cases, their definitions are somewhat different:
Obligate:
1: to bind legally or morally
2: to commit (as funds) to meet an obligation
Oblige:
1: to constrain by physical, moral, or legal force or by the exigencies of circumstance
2: A: to put in one’s debt by a favor or service B : to do a favor for
I suspect that the ‘obligate,’ coming as it does from Latin, was introduced as a legal term–a more narrowly defined term than ‘oblige.’
Thanks, Polly and Douglas, that confirms what I suspected: basically, moral requirement versus legal requirement.
Obliged means that which one ought to do as determined by moral reasoning and not being necessarily connected with any specific event, and hence typically originating in pre-existing moral principles as applicable to a given context.
Obligated mean that which has arisen from a specific event in response to which what one ought to do is determinable by reference to a prior formulated plan of response, typically originating in a binding agreement (eg contract) or other force of law (eg tort or crime), where the obligations to act arise because of being obliged to abide by one’s word or to obey the law.
Obligated to a Brit or in my case a Brit by way of the Irish Republic is straightforwardly an Americanism. It sounds clunky and unfamiliar. I appreciate that it’s quite an old word, and I take note of the distinction provided above between moral obligation and obligation by third party; it makes sense to me, although I suggest it’s a distinction hard to follow in vernacular speech. I echo the comment by the Scottish poster, I have never heard anyone use the word obligated in spoken speech anywhere in this part of the world. I simply don’t trust Merriam-Webster on this point.
Obligated does however have a legal meaning in the UK , as in an ‘obligated company’, that’s to say one bound by a legal contractual obligation.
I think the sticking point here is spoken or informal English, where in North America ‘obligated’ has become fashionable. Presumably there’s a reason for this, whether ‘obliged’ has a sense of Southern servility or connection to slavery as above suggested or whatever it may be.
I came across this forum after my supervisor – I am a lawyer in training – reprimanded me for using the word ‘obligated’.
I was thrown off when he told me that it was not a word, and the correct word was ‘obliged’. Sought some answers here. Good to see I wasn’t completely making up words.
Very amusing.
I’m surprised that someone pointed out Rita’s typo but no one else has commented on her mention of the other meaning of obliged as in “the prisoner obliged”. Clearly you could not use obligated in this sense, and it gives weight to the common observation that “obliged” is more of a choice: giving in to the pressure (whether legal, moral or physical) to do something.