Which one's correct-oblige or obligate?
Oblige or obligate
Both are correct. "Obligate" used to really grate on me. I always used to think that it was some crazy American back construction. However, I was proven wrong when I looked in the ditionary.
http://www.dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=54707&dict=CALD
http://www.bartleby.com/61/6/O0010600.html
http://www.bartleby.com/61/9/O0010900.html
http://www.dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=54707&dict=CALD
http://www.bartleby.com/61/6/O0010600.html
http://www.bartleby.com/61/9/O0010900.html
Neither is more correct than the other. They're both common words. In fact, they're sometimes different words. For instance, to oblige someone is to do something for them that they want you to do. "She asked me to pick up dinner, and I obliged her by getting some lasagna from a little Italian place down the street."
That's not the same as obligating someone, which means to make them HAVE to do something (or feel that they have to). "Although the statue was meant as a birthday gift, he obviously felt obligated to get me something expensive in return, despite my protestations."
Though fairly similar in meaning, I think it is more customary to use one over the other in certain phrases -- you would be more likely to hear:
"I was obliged to move the car so that she could get the horse trailer into the side yard."
But you would rarely if ever hear:
"I was obligated to move the car so that she could get the horse trailer into the side yard."
Same with "much obliged" as an alternative to "thank you" -- you never hear "much obligated", even though they would mean the same thing.
That's not the same as obligating someone, which means to make them HAVE to do something (or feel that they have to). "Although the statue was meant as a birthday gift, he obviously felt obligated to get me something expensive in return, despite my protestations."
Though fairly similar in meaning, I think it is more customary to use one over the other in certain phrases -- you would be more likely to hear:
"I was obliged to move the car so that she could get the horse trailer into the side yard."
But you would rarely if ever hear:
"I was obligated to move the car so that she could get the horse trailer into the side yard."
Same with "much obliged" as an alternative to "thank you" -- you never hear "much obligated", even though they would mean the same thing.
There is a dialect aspect to it as well. What's wrong with "obligate"? In US English nothing's wrong with it. In Australian English everything's wrong with it. Here's how I'd have put it.
"Although the statue was meant as a birthday gift, he obviously felt obliged to get me something expensive in return, despite my protest."
In my dialect "oblige" is fairly common but "obligate" is never heard. The distinction that Uriel mentions is not made in Australian English. We use "oblige" for both meanings.
"Although the statue was meant as a birthday gift, he obviously felt obliged to get me something expensive in return, despite my protest."
In my dialect "oblige" is fairly common but "obligate" is never heard. The distinction that Uriel mentions is not made in Australian English. We use "oblige" for both meanings.
I instinctively make the distinction that Uriel makes. However, as Jim says "obligate" is of US origin.
"Obligate" is commonly used as an adjective in biology. For example an "obligate anaerobe" is an organism that only lives in anaerobic conditions (in an oxygen-free environment). I wouldn't use it as a verb.
I think "obligate" is superior because it's closer to the original Latin word. "Oblige" is from the French corruption "obligier". Spanish uses "obligar", and Italian uses "obbligare".
Learners should note that obligate in the sense that Ed uses ("obligate anaerobe" or "obligate carnivore") is pronounced differently -- ob-li-get, with a schwa sound in the last syllable, rather than ob-li-gate, with the long A. (Well, at least in American English....) I think that's the only time it's pronounced that way, so if you aren't in the medical or biological fields, you may never need to know that! ;)
I had no idea that other speakers consider obligate an "American" word, or don't like to use it. It's a pretty ordinary, run-of-the-mill word for me, obviously derived from Latin, like a thousand other English words. Nor have I ever thought of it being superior or inferior to oblige -- both are perfectly good words to me, with only slight variations in usage, when any distinction is even made at all.
I had no idea that other speakers consider obligate an "American" word, or don't like to use it. It's a pretty ordinary, run-of-the-mill word for me, obviously derived from Latin, like a thousand other English words. Nor have I ever thought of it being superior or inferior to oblige -- both are perfectly good words to me, with only slight variations in usage, when any distinction is even made at all.
>>Oblige" is from the French corruption "obligier".<<
No corruption. It's the same word in French: oblige, conjugation of obliger.
No corruption. It's the same word in French: oblige, conjugation of obliger.
>There is a dialect aspect to it as well. What's wrong with "obligate"? In US English nothing's wrong with it. In Australian English everything's wrong with it. Here's how I'd have put it.
"Although the statue was meant as a birthday gift, he obviously felt obliged to get me something expensive in return, despite my protest."
In my dialect "oblige" is fairly common but "obligate" is never heard. The distinction that Uriel mentions is not made in Australian English. We use "oblige" for both meanings.<
Agreed. "Obligate" as a verb is undoubtedly an Americanism. You are not obliged to accept this, but any failure to do so will indicate your nationality or dependence on American television.
"Although the statue was meant as a birthday gift, he obviously felt obliged to get me something expensive in return, despite my protest."
In my dialect "oblige" is fairly common but "obligate" is never heard. The distinction that Uriel mentions is not made in Australian English. We use "oblige" for both meanings.<
Agreed. "Obligate" as a verb is undoubtedly an Americanism. You are not obliged to accept this, but any failure to do so will indicate your nationality or dependence on American television.
Yeah, I'm dependent on American television because generally no one else knows how to make good cinema or something worth watching. Yes, there is the odd exception in the vastness but usually everthing else is crap. Sorry to state the obvious but I won't lie. Switch off and read a book if that cheers you up.
As for oblige and obligate, they are undoubtedly Latinates (obligatus, obligatum, etc). Check the etymology. You are not made to acknowledge this but any oversight to do so will show your trust in the Romance languages.
Hmm... that last sentence didn't sound quite right with its Latinate deficiency.
As for oblige and obligate, they are undoubtedly Latinates (obligatus, obligatum, etc). Check the etymology. You are not made to acknowledge this but any oversight to do so will show your trust in the Romance languages.
Hmm... that last sentence didn't sound quite right with its Latinate deficiency.
<<I had no idea that other speakers consider obligate an "American" word, or don't like to use it. It's a pretty ordinary, run-of-the-mill word for me, obviously derived from Latin, like a thousand other English words. Nor have I ever thought of it being superior or inferior to oblige -- both are perfectly good words to me, with only slight variations in usage, when any distinction is even made at all.>>
"obligate" is an odd one because I use it, but some other British people regard it as an Americanism, which in a sense it is. However, that doesn't stop them from using hundreds of other 18th century American verbs such as to appreciate (from appreciation) to oppose (from opposition) to progress (from progression) to legislate (from legislation) etc, etc.
Here's a section from The American Language, Mencken1921.
"In particular, the manufacture of new verbs went on at a rapid pace. In his letter to Webster in 1789 Franklin denounced to advocate, to progress, and to oppose—a vain enterprise, for all of them are now in perfectly good usage.......Webster, though he agreed with Franklin in opposing to advocate, gave his imprimatur to to appreciate (i. e., to rise in value, and is credited by Sir Charles Lyell 27 with having himself invented to demoralize. He also approved to obligate."
http://www.bartleby.com/185/9.html
"obligate" is an odd one because I use it, but some other British people regard it as an Americanism, which in a sense it is. However, that doesn't stop them from using hundreds of other 18th century American verbs such as to appreciate (from appreciation) to oppose (from opposition) to progress (from progression) to legislate (from legislation) etc, etc.
Here's a section from The American Language, Mencken1921.
"In particular, the manufacture of new verbs went on at a rapid pace. In his letter to Webster in 1789 Franklin denounced to advocate, to progress, and to oppose—a vain enterprise, for all of them are now in perfectly good usage.......Webster, though he agreed with Franklin in opposing to advocate, gave his imprimatur to to appreciate (i. e., to rise in value, and is credited by Sir Charles Lyell 27 with having himself invented to demoralize. He also approved to obligate."
http://www.bartleby.com/185/9.html