Obliged Vs Obligated

It was in the middle of 2000 that I noticed more and more people using Obligated. It's an ugly word, and it takes longer to say than the much more elegant Obliged. Can anyone suggest a plausible reason why this should be happening? Should we start a campaign to reintroduce people to the shorter and more attractive version? Can anything be done to save the language from such creeping degeneration? I doubt it, but then, I am something of a cynic.

After some discussion, (included below) we seem to have:

Once obligated, you can't back out without serious repercussions.
To say that I'm obliged to do something means that I could live with the consequences of not doing it.

So it would seem that most of the time people use obligated, they actually mean obliged, since they usually (although not necessarily always) have a free choice. No doubt, the distinction will continue to disappear, as it has with uninterested versus disinterested, less versus fewer, me versus I, who versus whom, and other (no doubt better) examples.''

"I feel obliged to disagree, but by no means obligated, as I clearly have a free choice to abstain."

"To me, saying that "I'm obliged to do something" means that I could live with the consequences of not doing it. In other words, I have free choice to do it or not, and I choose to do it." this distinction between the necessity of legality but the contingency and avoid ability of morality. Is a fine example of contemporary MORAL INCOMPETENCE. In moral theory to engage in a violation of morality has necessary (natural law) consequences, even if not noticed by the perpetrator or anyone else. for example, to engage in an immoral act necessarily weakens one's character--even if one gains greater social acceptance, approval, wealth, etc.

In addition, the prevalence of "obligated" occurred simultaneously in this generation for the neolgistic tactic of preferring nouns over verbs and (re)inventing verbs based on mound. (E.g., he loaned (instead of "lent") me the money. this is an ontological error since within the cosmos Change --verbs-- has primacy over fixity (nouns).

I appreciate this discussion very much. It is true, some words are just ugly.

Cheers to all!

Appealing to the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

: http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Obligated

An obligation is a legal, moral or financial commitment. To me, this implies that you have no choice in the matter: Once obligated, you can't back out without serious repercussions.

: http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Obliged

To be obliged can mean required, but it can also mean to have an informal moral sense that you should do something. (The definition says "doing a favor.") To me, saying that "I'm obliged to do something" means that I could live with the consequences of not doing it. In other words, I have free choice to do it or not, and I choose to do it.

The above just said itself that they mean the same thing. "An obligation is a legal, MORAL OR financial ... To be obliged CAN mean required, but can ALSO mean ta have an informal MORAL sense..."

: Me believe that the difference between me and I is
: still pretty clear. But maybe that's just I.
: No doubt, the distinction will
: continue to disappear,
: as it has with ...
: me versus
: I
: .

A real example of me versus I confusion came up at work yesterday. Keith said

: "John understands C better than me."

I took Keith's statement to mean that John understands C better than John understands Keith. In context, that was a plausible interpretation, but wrong.

Put the implied words back to determine the correct usage:

John understands C better than (he understands) me.
John understands C better than I (do).

It seems to me people tend to use obligated where they should. The original author is the one who seems to have trouble with the difference between the two words. Neither is a "version" of the other, as the original author submitted. Obligated is a perfectly useful word and is applicable to many situations. There's nothing "ugly" about the word obligated, nor elegant about "obliged" (except that "obliged" tends to be used when discussing courtesies, where "obligated" is used to discuss mandates).

I often pass on topics like this one, even though I might have something pertinent to say about it. Today I feel obliged to add something from my memories of my father.

On an occasion when someone had done a favor which was more in the line of common courtesy than ones duty, he would be heard to say much obliged. It would have a ring of sincerity and appreciation, almost like a tip of the hat or other such bodily gesture. Often the recipient would be taken aback somewhat by the comment, but would respond to it by a slow dip of their head which was taken and understood as a return of appreciation. I could not help to think that my father was also saying to himself I should be careful and alert in doing the same for others.

As a result of this, I see obliged as having courtesy attached to it, and obligated as having a more rigid requirement of absolute duty. This may only apply to me, having a very close personal reference in mind when I hear or think about each word.

Perhaps it is this way with others and with other pairs of similar word usages. Some things are understood in relation to learning, other things in relation to feeling. -- DonaldNoyes.20110717

I agree entirely that the original entry is invalid and its author clearly confused. The two words are similar in definition, sometimes mistaken for one another, and victims of grammatical error more often than not. As with the other words listed, the definitions are similar to one another, but the difference is in the application and implication; the subtext or the dialog. Several of the other posts shed light on the distinction, which is that an obligation is clearly a duty above all else and to oblige is to act in a state of free will most often with a sort of cheery disposition.

In response to the other examples, they are simply more cases of the same. Uninterested implies prior knowledge and therefor bias, whereas being disinterested implies a lack of bias and/or personal interest. Who and whom are also not interchangeable. Whom is the objective form of who. You would say "That's who I thought it was" as opposed to "That's whom I thought it was." You would say "To whom did you lend the book?" as opposed to "To who did you lend the book?" Fewer and less aren't even close to prime examples. Fewer refers to specific units of measure, whereas less implies volume. I had fewer Skittles after sharing. John's glass had less wine than Al's.

The only two in that bunch that merit any discussion are "me" and "I." The issue here is that even our elementary educators are beginning to exhibit less and less mastery of the English language, passing their ignorance on to young minds.

"Obliged" - I owe you a favour. "Obligated" - I am required to do something.

The two are related in that the implication is that something will be done but the sense of "direction" is different, with "obliged" I am offering, whereas with "obligated" I am compelled.