"Yo no te he obligado a comer."
Translation:I have not forced you to eat.
Some Spanish verbs need a preposition before the infinitive. It's just the way Spanish is.
This useful site lists some verbs that have a preposition before the following infinitive. http://users.ipfw.edu/jehle/courses/VRBSPREP.HTM. It doesn't have obligar, but other dictionaries show "obligar a" in the examples.
No. "Yo" is not the one being obliged, "yo" is the one doing the obliging (or forcing). (Besides the past tense thing ...)
Yo no te ha-obligado a comer.
I not to-you have-obliged to eat.
I not have-obliged you to eat
I have not obliged you to eat
I think "I am not obliged to feed you" would be "Yo no estoy obligado a te alimentar".
Hola Barbara, In the sentence you wrote above, alimentarte is the only way to write it. But it means "I am not obliged to feed you, not I have not obliged you to eat. Look closely at who is being obliged. If you put the te before the verb, as you have seen so far in DL, it must be before the main verb, so "Yo no te estoy obligado a alimentar". But this says something totally diffferent from what you wrote, but is a correct translation of the English: " I am not obliged to feed you. It depends on who is being obliged, me to feed you, or you to eat. Clear as mud?
Yes, thanks, that's clear as clear :) Except I don't understand what you said about "This says something totally different from what you wrote." My last sentence was an attempt to translate "I am not obliged to feed you", not the actual sentence in this DL question. I was trying to answer healthnut's question.
Youpapa: Your example sentence "I have not obligated to eat you" wouldn't make sense in English because when you 'obligate' there needs to be someone whom you are obligating (or 'have obligated', in your case). It's like saying "I have not told to punch you" - you have (not) told whom? No one.