As a native English speaker, we have the advantage of knowing when something sounds funny. Not funny ha ha, but funny peculiar. This is very convenient, because it usually indicates pretty well when something is correct and when something isn’t.
However, as a student, it’s not very useful if the best your expensive private tutor can offer as an explanation is that, ‘it sounds better’. Unless you can borrow your teacher's ears every time you need to write something in English, how are we supposed to know what sounds good and what doesn’t?
What’s more useful is when your teacher can actually explain in the classes why something sounds good, or doesn't.
Take the example of the word Shall.
Many of the sentences below are possible, but only one of them sounds ‘right’.
I shall close the window. - Possible, but it sounds strange: too dramatic or medieval.
You shall close the window. - Again, it sounds like a King or wizard is giving me a mission.
Shall I close the window? - Great
Shall you close the window? - Big fat no.
Why this madness? These sentences all use shall In a similar way. Why is only one of them acceptable?
Well in everyday use, shall is used for suggestions (Shall I), but not requests (shall you), and no longer for decisions (I shall) nor orders (you shall).
So now we have a rule (albeit a rather complicated one) and it's a bit easier to explain why something sounds funny.
As I said, native level speakers can hear this difference easily, and it helps me identify issues that my advanced students are often not aware of.
Two words which regularly come to scramble my ears are oblige and obligate. I seem to hear them and see them all the time, perhaps for two reasons. Firstly, I’ve spent a large part of my life living in Spanish speaking countries where Obligar is a commonly used verb.
Secondly, I’ve spent years working with lawyers who also use (and misuse) these words in legal contexts.
But despite oblige and obligate existing in the dictionary, they both always sound strange.
So is it oblige or obligate? Why do they both sound funny?
Well, in everyday English, you probably shouldn't use either. We ARE talking about obligation, but if we are talking about making somebody do something, then that’s exactly what we would say.
My parents made me study or they forced me to study. Not they obliged me to study or obligated me to study.
Alternatively, I have to study, I should study or I must study. Not I am obliged to study or obligated to study.
So far, nice and easy. The message seems to be: avoid using oblige nor obligate (even for Spanish speakers).
In the legal business world it’s a bit different.
Obviously, within the world of contracts, discussion of obligations is commonplace, but the use of oblige / obligate is still a little tricky.
Ken Adams does a good job of explaining the difference here; however, I would add a little more detail.
After ‘ctrl+f’ ing my way through many online legal documents, the pattern seems to be the following: Most of the time, obligation in a legal context is expressed with the use of shall and must.
Oblige and obligate ARE both used as verbs and seem to mean exactly the same thing. However, oblige is nearly always used in the passive form and rarely as an active verb.
E.g.1, The ESFA shall use reasonable endeavours (but shall not be obliged) to consult the contractor.
E.g.2, Obligatory insurances means all insurances effected, or which the Borrower is obliged to effect, under Clause 14 (Insurance Undertakings) or any other provision of this Agreement or another Finance Document.
= Both in the passive form.
Obligate seems to be the opposite. Occasionally used as an active verb, but not used in the passive.
E.g.1, Lease-purchase agreement does not obligate or require the consumer to continue leasing or using the property beyond the initial period
E.g.2, A representative, who has the legal authority to obligate the farmers’ market/farmstand, which include a beginning and an ending time and date for each year of operation.
= Active not passive.
But Henry, why do we have these words if we can’t use them? Good question.
When do we use oblige or obligate in English?
I think the most common situation is when we feel a moral obligation to do something.
E.g., I feel obliged to go to his birthday party, even though I don’t like him much.
Here it’s used as an adjective.
We can also use obligated in the same context.
E.g., I felt obligated to say something at the meeting.
Adjective (moral obligation).
The other use is in the expression, much obliged. Which means, I am grateful.
A: Here’s an extra €10 for your efforts today.
B: Much obliged (not very common).
Conclusions.
In general the advice is, don’t use Oblige or Obligate. But there are some possibilities.
Oblige
Everyday use
· Don’t use it as a verb. Use have to, must, or make somebody
· Use it as an adjective to express a moral obligation
· Use it in the expression much obliged
Legal
· Use it in the passive form
· Not usually used as an active verb (use shall or must)
Obligate
Everyday use
· Not commonly used
· Not common as a verb
· Use it as an adjective to express a moral obligation
Legal
· Used occasionally as a verb.
· Not used in passive (use oblige)
I hope that’s useful. If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic, or any other, I’d love to hear about it.
I'm a native English speaker based in Helsinki, Finland. I offer English language training and consultation for individuals and businesses, face to face and online.
Comments