"Where no man has gone before" or "Where no one has gone before"?
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
I prefer "no man" for three reasons:
1. I think it sounds better, and more epic as you say.
2. It's the traditional route, the one used in TOS.
3. "No one" is technically inaccurate. "Man" is understood to mean "mankind," as in humanity. We're talking about places where no humans have gone before. But these are places where Romulans, Cardassians, the Q, Trelane, or whoever else have definitely gone before. So "no one" is not true.
Oh, an addendum: I've never bought the argument that the terms "man" and "mankind" are sexist. But whether you think they are or aren't, I think it's odd the way Trek handled them. We know it is canon that Starfleet used the phrase "where no man has gone before" for a long time. It's not just part of the narration. We've seen the phrase on dedication plaques, we've heard Zefram Cochrane and Jonathan Archer speak it, etc. Then at some point, apparently, they switched to "no one." Heck, Kirk even makes the switch himself at the end of TUC in his final log entry. So with the switch being an "in universe" thing, and not just something that happened in the opening narration, what are we supposed to believe? That Starfleet was totally sexist all those years and only came to realize it around the time of TUC?
Another addendum: Hmm, thinking about it, do we know that Starfleet actually switched to "no one"? Yeah, we hear Kirk say it in his log, but maybe that was just a personal thing. Do we ever see a plaque or hear a speech or anything in Picard's era that demonstrates that it was changed? Maybe the 24th century version is still "no man" and the only thing that's changed is our out-of-universe TV show credits narration.
1. I think it sounds better, and more epic as you say.
2. It's the traditional route, the one used in TOS.
3. "No one" is technically inaccurate. "Man" is understood to mean "mankind," as in humanity. We're talking about places where no humans have gone before. But these are places where Romulans, Cardassians, the Q, Trelane, or whoever else have definitely gone before. So "no one" is not true.
Oh, an addendum: I've never bought the argument that the terms "man" and "mankind" are sexist. But whether you think they are or aren't, I think it's odd the way Trek handled them. We know it is canon that Starfleet used the phrase "where no man has gone before" for a long time. It's not just part of the narration. We've seen the phrase on dedication plaques, we've heard Zefram Cochrane and Jonathan Archer speak it, etc. Then at some point, apparently, they switched to "no one." Heck, Kirk even makes the switch himself at the end of TUC in his final log entry. So with the switch being an "in universe" thing, and not just something that happened in the opening narration, what are we supposed to believe? That Starfleet was totally sexist all those years and only came to realize it around the time of TUC?
Another addendum: Hmm, thinking about it, do we know that Starfleet actually switched to "no one"? Yeah, we hear Kirk say it in his log, but maybe that was just a personal thing. Do we ever see a plaque or hear a speech or anything in Picard's era that demonstrates that it was changed? Maybe the 24th century version is still "no man" and the only thing that's changed is our out-of-universe TV show credits narration.
Great points. I agree.
Actually neither one works for me.Which one do you like better?
Me, "no man" sounds more epic, but "no one" is good too.
TOS: "Where no man has gone before." What about the women and the Vulcan?
TNG: "Where no one has gone before." No matter where ENT-D went, they ran into sentient beings of some sort or another in almost every episode. The only exception I can recall is the Traveller episode "Where No One Has Gone Before."
This. The change just made little sense to me. Of course someone has gone there before, or there'd be no new life or new civilizations for us to boldly seek out... duh
The women are included. "Man," in this context, has always been understood to be a generic reference to humanity, which was commonly referred to as "mankind." It's not gender-specific.
On the Vulcan, though, you've got me. If I recall correctly, Spock even says "I am not a man" at one point.
So... where does that leave us? "To boldy go where no individual currently assigned to the U.S.S. Enterprise has gone before"?
"Man" sounds much better.
Given the treatment of women in the original Star Trek, is this really that hard to believe?
I do like the idea that, in-universe, Starfleet has become more inclusive by the 24th century (meaning, more aliens than the human dominated Starfleet of the 23rd century).
Honestly, however, I don't find the slight difference in phrase sways me one way or another. It's one three-letter word exchanged for another.
I prefer no one. Because Patrick Stewart said it, so it's therefore better. And no man still seems kind of exclusive, even though we retroactively apply it to mean humans in general. But I don't care that much.
IMO, the original "no man" fit because the Enterprise wasn't initially a Federation starship when TOS began (that would come later in the first season). It was essentially an Earth vessel with Spock as the only non-Human crewmember aboard really. So the term was appropriate for a vessel frequently going where mankind had never gone before.
"No one" I think was used because it was more politically correct--probably to sound not sexist in 1987--but that could still fit if it was meant to convey going where no one from the Federation had gone before.
"No one" I think was used because it was more politically correct--probably to sound not sexist in 1987--but that could still fit if it was meant to convey going where no one from the Federation had gone before.
As stated above the "man" stands for "human" or "mankind" so the phrase means "where no human has gone before."
Which makes sense if the quote comes from Zefram Cochrane as Memory Alpha says:
So the phrase does not refer to the Federation or even Starfleet but rather human exploration in general. It can be assumed that it was a famous quote that Starfleet adopted (by Kirk's time) and later mangled slightly (by Picard's time).
Which makes sense if the quote comes from Zefram Cochrane as Memory Alpha says:
Memory Alpha said:
So the phrase does not refer to the Federation or even Starfleet but rather human exploration in general. It can be assumed that it was a famous quote that Starfleet adopted (by Kirk's time) and later mangled slightly (by Picard's time).
Simply based on how the words sound, "man" is more of a punctuation right where the sentence needs one. "One" doesn't work as well.
Also, quibbles about sexism have always been misplaced:
Armstrong swears he said "a man," but the recordings didn't pick it up. Maybe, or he blew his lines and announced one small step for mankind and also one giant leap for mankind.
Also, quibbles about sexism have always been misplaced:
You mean "One Small Step for a Man." That's to contrast "man" (Neil Armstrong, a human male) with "mankind," so the connection actually isn't there.
Armstrong swears he said "a man," but the recordings didn't pick it up. Maybe, or he blew his lines and announced one small step for mankind and also one giant leap for mankind.
We're not retroactively applying it to mean humans in general. That's what it always meant, even in the 1960's. "Man," in the context in which it's used here, has always been a shorthand for "mankind," which in turn has always been a common way to refer to "humanity." It's only since our society became so ultra politically correct that language practically scares us to death that we decided it was somehow exclusionary.
Indeed. One of the official definitions of the word "man" is "the human race". I knew this as a kid before Star Trek hit the air in 1966.
Robert
Not retroactively; in fact, quite the opposite. In Old English, man meant the same thing as “person” or “human being.” Wer meant an adult male (a form that survives today in “werewolf”) and wif (from which “wife” is derived) meant an adult female. It was centuries later that man came to mean an adult of the male gender, as well as the human race collectively.
The radio transmission is as clear as can be. Armstrong flubbed his line. He probably over-rehearsed.You mean “One Small Step for a Man.” That's to contrast “man” (Neil Armstrong, a human male) with “mankind,” so the connection actually isn't there.
Armstrong swears he said “a man,“ but the recordings didn't pick it up. Maybe, or he blew his lines and announced one small step for mankind and also one giant leap for mankind.
Similar threads
- Poll
