was oblivious to

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was oblivious to" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to indicate that someone was unaware of or did not notice something. Example: "Despite the obvious signs of tension in the room, she was oblivious to the discomfort of her colleagues."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Academia

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

"I was oblivious to it.

Independent

Yeats was oblivious to that too.

Independent

I was oblivious to anyone and anything.

The Guardian

But Alexa was oblivious to my annoyance.

MIT Technology Review

She was oblivious to his feelings.

The New York Times

He was oblivious to the shooting for years, he said.

The New York Times

At the time, Schiller was oblivious to these developments.

MIT Technology Review

Not that Hill was oblivious to the dangers.

The New York Times - Sports

But at the time I was oblivious to this".

The Guardian - Books

The rabbit was oblivious to machine-gun fire.

The New York Times

"I was oblivious to what I was getting myself into.

The New York Times - Travel

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "was oblivious to" to emphasize a lack of awareness despite clear or impending signals. This adds dramatic effect and highlights the character's disconnect from their surroundings.

Common error

Avoid using "was oblivious to" when the subject is merely uninterested or dismissive. "Oblivious" implies a genuine lack of awareness, not a deliberate choice to ignore something.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was oblivious to" functions as an adjectival phrase, modifying a noun or pronoun to describe a state of unawareness or lack of perception. It is frequently used to describe a character's state of mind or their relationship to their surroundings. Ludwig examples confirm this usage.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

67%

Academia

11%

Wiki

3%

Less common in

Formal & Business

3%

Science

13%

Reference

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "was oblivious to" is a grammatically correct and very common phrase used to describe a lack of awareness or perception. As Ludwig AI indicates, its grammatical status is "Correct". Predominantly found in News & Media, and Academia contexts, the phrase serves to highlight a character's disconnect or lack of understanding. Alternatives include "was unaware of" and "was ignorant of". When employing this phrase, ensure it accurately reflects a genuine lack of awareness rather than mere disinterest.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was unaware of

Indicates a lack of knowledge or perception.

was unconscious of

Emphasizes a state of not being aware.

was insensible to

Highlights a lack of emotional or physical response.

was ignorant of

Suggests a lack of information or understanding.

was heedless of

Implies a disregard or inattention to something.

was unmindful of

Similar to heedless, but with a slightly more formal tone.

was blind to

Suggests a figurative inability to see or understand something.

was deaf to

Implies a figurative inability to hear or acknowledge something.

was not paying attention to

A more direct way of saying someone was not focused.

failed to notice

Emphasizes the act of not observing something.

FAQs

How can I use "was oblivious to" in a sentence?

The phrase "was oblivious to" is used to describe someone's lack of awareness of something. For example, "She "was oblivious to" the danger signs."

What can I say instead of "was oblivious to"?

Alternatives include "was unaware of", "was unconscious of", or "was ignorant of depending on the context".

Is it better to use "was oblivious of" or "was oblivious to"?

"Was oblivious to" is the correct and more common usage. "Was oblivious of" is grammatically incorrect.

What's the difference between "was oblivious to" and "was indifferent to"?

"Was oblivious to" indicates a lack of awareness, while "was indifferent to" implies awareness but a lack of concern or interest.