Grammar question: Is the phrase “obviate the need” redundant?
When the word obviate is used I often see it in this phrase but my dictionary sez obviate means “to make unnecessary.” You wouldn’t say, “The horseless carriage made unnecessary the need for the use of the buggy whip.” I would think correct usage would be, “The horseless carriage obviated the use of the buggy whip.”
I agree.
From Bryan Garner’s Dictionary of Modern American Usage, which is probably the best guide around for American usage and grammar:
I had to read the OP several times to get the point. I think you’re right.
‘Obviate’ obviates ‘the need’.
So, America’s premier usage guide, written by one of the country’s most esteemed lexicographers, plays no part part in making your decision? Even when it directly the addresses the issue at hand, giving citations and contextual examples?
Just curious.
Sorry, my brain cells were exhausted. Not being a native speaker, I do not have the precise and accurate feeling for the language you may have; furthermore I only quickly scanned the reference work you cited and thought it supported the earlier statement. Guess I was wrong. FTR I tend to use ‘obviate the need’, but I honestly thought the OP was correct in setting me straight. I’ll have to let you guys find out what’s right.
So, according to you it should be:
‘obviate’ does not obviate the need for ‘the need’?
For what it’s worth, The New Oxford American Dictionary carries both definitions and usages:
I’ve rarely heard the expression without “the need”, and tend to use it that way myself.
I know this thread is ancient, but …
If these two mean the same thing:
[ul]
[li]X obviates Y[/li][li]X obviates the need for Y[/li][/ul]
then by definition the latter is redundant, but that does not make it WRONG. If the OED says it’s OK, then hey, who are we to argue. It may be one of those many things which was considered wrong at one point but is now accepted because it’s in common use.
But of course the OED saying that it is not wrong doesn’t mean that it’s not redundant. If it weren’t redundant, then those two statements would have different meanings (or one would be incorrect). After all, it’s perfectly correct to say
[ul]
[li]I’m late; I should have arrived earlier.[/li][/ul]
and it is also perfectly redundant.
I am continually surprised at people’s displeasure at the idea a sentence or phrase may be redundant.
Not necessarily. Otherwise, you’d be saying these two things are exactly the same:
[ul]
[li]Y[/li][li]the need for Y[/li][/ul]
Someone addicted to gambling feels the need to gamble. If a drug got rid of that need, then it would obviate the need to gamble. It would not be obviating gambling itself.
Therefore, while it may be redundant in some cases, it may not be redundant in others.
The problem here is not with the phrase “obviate the need”, which is not redundant, but with the inadequate definition given in the OP’s dictionary. “Obviate” does not mean remove a need, it (usually) means remove, but is only used in contexts when the thing being removed is a need or necessity. (I guess in phrases like “obviate disaster” it also means something like prevent, but, again, its use seems to be limited to certain quite narrow semantic contexts.)
Just Ed’s dictionary, unlike the OP’s, seems to be sensitive to this context dependence of the word’s usage.
There is no rule that says “Thou shalt not be redundant.” There is nothing wrong with deliberate redundancy as a literary device or for emphasis. “Joey climbed on board the big yellow school bus.” Well, everybody knows that school buses are big and yellow but this helps create an image, and is especially apt for a younger audience.
And I’m not one of the folks who raises hell every time someone says ATM machine or PIN number.
But I don’t want to be redundant out of ignorance of accepted usage. At least, I didn’t nine years ago.
Isn’t the second half of this sentence redundant?
I’d say that stating that something is only redundant in some cases obviates the need to state it’s not redundant in others.
Not necessarily. In some cases it may be redundant, in other cases it may be definitely redundant. So, in saying that the other cases may not be redundant, I was distinguishing from the case where there was not uncertainty in the remaining cases. Additionally, in some cases, it may be pie.
Nothing obviates the need for pie.
I question this text:
This is a poor explanation. The argument isn’t supported by the example.
If obviate means “to make unnecessary”, then “obviate the need” would mean “to make unnecessary the need”. When is a need necessary, where the item needed isn’t necessary? When is a need unnecessary, when the item needed is unnecessary? It seems redundant to me.
But if we simply take “obviate” to mean “avoid” or “eliminate”, then it’s not redundant.
I don’t buy this as an acceptable redundancy (to stress a point). It’s just not used that way in practice. IMHO it’s a bit more like “is comprised of”, which is an incorrect usage that’s more common than the correct usage (eventually making it acceptable, at the cost of expressiveness and specificity in the language. Eventually all words will be synonyms! 
)
The OP is asking about “obviate the need for the use of”, replacing it with “obviate the use of.” But you could also say “obviate the need for”. So the real redundancy isn’t “obviate” + “the need”, but “the need for” + “the use of.”