Comments on: On Posting Regularly: Obliged or Obligated?

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

By: Annie Glimmerglass

Annie Glimmerglass — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 01:28:26 +0000

Stefan’s comment is in line with my own here. I think of “obliged” as more self-imposed, and “obligated” as more imposed from outside. Thanks, Stefan, for saying it far better than I could!

By: Casey

Casey — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:05:40 +0000

Stefan, thank you for your illuminating comment. Not only is it interesting, it makes a great coda to the blockquote comment from legal translator at the end of the original post. I wondered why obliged and obligated could have such different legal consequences; now I know!

Thank you also for the compliments. This is a very new blog, and I’m glad you found it! I hope you’ll enjoy the future posts, and by all means do make suggestions if there’s some English question that’s been irking you.

By: Stefan

Stefan — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:50:56 +0000

I thought you might find it interesting that in H.L.A. Hart's The Concept of Law -- a seminal work (perhaps the seminal modern work) in jurisprudential theory -- a key part of the argument turns on the distinction between "obligated" and "obliged." Hart's view is that a law does not require a sanction to be understood as a law, repudiating a common jurisprudential position advocated by John Austin. Hart gives the example of stopping at a stop sign when no one else is there (including no pesky police handing out tickets). You are not obliged to stop, according to Hart, but you are obligated to do so. Likewise, if a gunman insists you hand over your valuables, you are obliged to do so but not <obligated. See, e.g., H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law, pp. 79-88 (5th ed. 1986). Hart, by the way, was English. Let me also note that I discovered your interesting , and perhaps to be wonderful, blog, through the helpful links at the National Grammar Day website (I'm not a prescriptivist, either, but then ...).

By: Casey

Casey — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:56:11 +0000

Very well could be! Kudos to you for plowing your way through anyway.

By: Beverly

Beverly — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:15:40 +0000

I’ve recently been reading through all the Jane Austen novels, and it took about two books before I started understanding what she was saying all the time. I imagine the 200 year gap is the main cause, but I expect there are some British things going on, as well.