Comments on: “Obligate” v. “Oblige”

By: Ray Ward

Ray Ward — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:46:54 +0000

Much obliged for this post.

By: Alan Meldrum

Alan Meldrum — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:12:33 +0000

Hi all. While we need to keep an ear to usage, there is a basic grammatical core to common English that we can refer to, and to me at least should hold for some time yet. The meaning of “obligate” does not necessarily add or remove anything from “oblige”, and can be considered a redundancy. Any nuances as to the moral or legal or bureacratic nature of the obligation are invented to cover the gap that needed be there in the first place. Similarly, we see “orient” and “orientate” where orientate has been back formed from orientation, but again, there is nothing that is added or taken away by the redundant “ate”. If we admit these longer unnecessary back forms, how long will it be before we are tormenting ourselves over how many angels can fit between “organize” and “organizate”? Oops sorry, “organizate” has not yet hit the streets … yet … but if it sounds pointless and unnnecesary, that is because it is! Thoughts, rocks all welcomed, regards, Alan

By: Art

Art — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:49:27 +0000

Whether “obligate” was originally a back-formation or not is probably less important than how people use the word now, and whether it grates on the ear (though recent backformations are of course more likely to grate).

Ultimately, I would never use “obligate” because, to my ear, it sounds like a solecism, whether it is or is not. On this side of the Atlantic, “obliged” is used in both senses – though in the moral sense one usually says one “feels obliged” rather than “is obliged”, and the distinction is made in that way.