Comments on: On Posting Regularly: Obliged or Obligated?

By: lionel hurst

lionel hurst — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 03:02:08 +0000

The use of the longer and less efficient word “obligated” is typical of American abuse of the English language - which they no longer really speak.If you want to speak English, refer to an English dictionary, not a cheap American copy.As an Australian I am obliged to point out that a “obligate” sounds like a seriously deformed entrance portal.

By: Paul Knowles

Paul Knowles — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:01:05 +0000

What many people seem to be missing, here and on other websites where the obliged - obligated argument flares up is that many quoted passages refer to obliged and obligate but not obligated.
Obligate and obligation are legitimate and accepted, as is obliged, but the legitimacy of obligated is questionable and I have seen nothing yet to prove it’s legitimacy.

Someone posted elswhere that it is in the novel Pamela by Samuel Richardson (English author) from 1740; but on investigation I can only see the word used in descriptions of the novel and not in the novel itself. Even if it is in this novel, there is no law against an author making mistakes.

In the UK I can only really (mostly) find the word obligated used in relation to legally binding duties that apply to non-persons, i.e. companies.
So I don’t think that obligated can currently be used legitimately in conversation in Britian and countries speaking British English. However, and as is obvious from this blog and others like it, the use of obligated is common in the US; which in my opinion is just fine.

It sounds wrong to British English speakers and indeed it would be wrong in British English but languages constantly evolve and the words obliged and obligated seem to have stemmed from Latin and French routes and have evolved into the words we use today and of course English continues to evolve as it should. Some people don’t like it and beleive that the original usage is the correct one but I belive that the most common usage, even if different to the original intended usage is also correct, that’s how language develops.

I like how there is a fairly common understanding that in American English, Obliged is something one feels compelled to do which is different to obligated which is something one is forced to do by law or contract. The only problem I see is that many people only learn one version (it would seem that for American English speakers this would usually be Obligated) and use that one word for both meanings and therefore use it incorrectly.

So as far as I can tell:
British English: Obliged only (When refering to persons, obliged would seem to be the original word)
American English Obliged and Obligated (When refering to persons, with subtle differences as described above).

By: ajithkumarcc

ajithkumarcc — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 01:18:00 +0000

Hi,

Cricket as we know is currently the second most followed sport after soccer, with many countries now getting in cricket, can cricket overtake soccer as the most followed sports ever?

By: Casey

Casey — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:56:21 +0000

It’s interesting you should say that, Tessa, because I have noticed lately that “woken” seems to be the UK usage, while “awakened” seems to be the U.S. choice. Your mix of UK (obliged) and US (awakened) preferences makes me wonder where you’re writing in from!

By: Tessa Donne

Tessa Donne — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:31:16 +0000

Obliged is the best word in my opinion. It is elegant and means the same. Think “obligated” comes from people who have heard and use the word obligation but are not familiar with obliged which is not in common usage. Most people say, “have to” or “must” instead.
It is like saying “woken up” instead of “awakened.”
“Woken up,” just sounds ignorant and awkward to me

By: Casey

Casey — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:08:00 +0000

Talia, that’s very illuminating! Thank you for adding it to the discussion.

Of course, since he’s British, we can’t be sure that an American would make the same distinction, although I certainly see his logic…

By: Talia

Talia — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:15:54 +0000

Oh, and yes, he’s British.

By: Talia

Talia — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:11:39 +0000

I was doing some philosophy reading and I cam across the following quote which immediately made me think of this post and I had to show it to you. The philosopher here notices a subtle distinction between the way “obliged” and “obligated” might be used.
“The plausibility of the claim that the gunman situation displays the meaning of obligation lies in the fact that it is certainly one in which we would say that B, if he obeyed, was ‘obliged’ to hand over his money. It is, however, equally certain that we should misdescribe the situation if we said, on these facts, that B ‘had an obligation’ or a ‘duty’ to hand over the money. So from the start it is evident that we need something else for an understanding of the idea of obligation. There is a difference, yet to be explained, between the assertion that someone was obliged to do something and the assertion that he had an obligation to do it.” (Hart 1994, 82)

By: Belletra » See No Evil, Hear No Evil: The Out-Group Illusion

Belletra » See No Evil, Hear No Evil: The Out-Group Illusion — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:14:02 +0000

[…] as an example the posts on this blog that deal with the US/UK language divide. My post on obliged vs. obligated has received more hits to date than any other piece of writing on this site. I even got a link on […]

By: legal translator

legal translator — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:31:27 +0000

It’s so happy to read your posts,Casey. I will you consult you some questions to better understand English usages according to a native’s view. Stefan, thank you for giving us so accurate a quote! I will try to find that book. Is it possible to find it online? thank you