2

It is obvious to me that the words are related, just by spelling. Yet, no dictionary I glanced though reveals the link. I guess that obvious is something that eliminates (obviates) the uncertainty. It is obvious. Is that right?

4
  • 1
    Try 'The Free Dictionary by Farlex' - thefreedictionary.com/obvious and thefreedictionary.com/obviate and you'll see the common root. It's not quite what you think.
    – Frank
    Commented Feb 11, 2015 at 15:33
  • Welcome to ELU.SE. Etymonline.com is one of ELU's general references. They are definitely related, and their evolution through slightly different meanings of the Latin prefix ob- might be in scope here.
    – Andrew Leach
    Commented Feb 11, 2015 at 15:35
  • Your "folk etymology" is mistaken. Obvious comes from Latin [that which is] in the way, presenting itself readily, open, exposed, commonplace. Nothing to do with eliminating anything. And obviate has essentially the same etymology, although the meanings have clearly diverged over millennia. Commented Feb 11, 2015 at 15:36
  • Now I see the etymology is contradictions are conspicuous.
    – Val
    Commented Feb 11, 2015 at 19:02

1 Answer 1

1

This is an excellent example of two modern words that are farther away from each other than they seem:

The ancient history of obvious:

1580s, "frequently met with,"

from Latin obvius "that is in the way, presenting itself readily, open, exposed, commonplace,"

from obviam (adv.) "in the way,"

from ob "against" (see ob-) + viam, accusative of via "way"

(see via).

[ablative form of via "way, road, path, highway, channel, course," from PIE *wegh- "to go, convey"]

Meaning "plain to see, evident" is first recorded 1630s.

The ancient history of obviate:

1590s, "to meet and do away with,"

from Late Latin obviatus, past participle of obviare "act contrary to, go against,"

from Latin obvius "that is in the way, that moves against" (see obvious)

Though both reach back to the Latin obvius, the primary difference seems to appear in the connection to the Latin singular accusative viam

Phr.: on the r[oad]., inter viam, Cic.

Though routinely defined as against, the Latin prefix ob- could imply several meanings, depending on how it was used:

prefix meaning "toward, against, across, down," also used as an intensive,

from Latin ob "toward, to, over against, in the way of, by reason of, about, before, in front of,"

from PIE root *epi, also *opi "near, against" (see epi-).

With viam, ob- produces "in [front of] the way" and, by extension since 1630, "plain to see" in obvious:

ADJECTIVE

  1. Easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent:

In obviatus, the ob- carries more of the against connotation with the more active past participle of viare, producing "move against," and eventually by 1590 "meet and do away with" in obviate:

VERB

[WITH OBJECT]

1.0 Remove (a need or difficulty):

1.1 Avoid or prevent (something undesirable):

www.etymonline.com

A Smaller English-Latin Dictionary: Abridged from the Larger Dictionary

www.oxforddictionaries.com

4
  • There’s something delightfully oxymoronic, yet perfectly logical really, about “the more active past [passive] participle”. Commented Feb 11, 2015 at 18:23
  • Yes, which is more active: a past participle in the passive voice or a noun? Passive past participle by a nose!
    – ScotM
    Commented Feb 11, 2015 at 20:38
  • 1
    Depends on the pair, surely. I’d think of slaughter or rested (as nouns) as more active than deceased or slept, for example, regardless of word classes. But this is a wholly different meaning of active than the one I was quipping about. :-) Commented Feb 11, 2015 at 20:51
  • Supernal answer!
    – user50720
    Commented Apr 16, 2015 at 22:12

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .