"Where no man has gone before" or "Where no one has gone before"?

[Skywalker]

I'm sure no small amount of nerves led to the flub, too. I mean, the guy was walking on the Moon for crying out loud. I know I'd have a hard time saying anything coherent if I were in his position.

 

[The_Baroness]

How about "To boldy go....somewhere..."

 

[Deckerd]

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.

Yes I'm sure the writers had Beowulf open in front of them when they were writing Star Trek.

It was of its time (where no man). Bottom line is that a modern space travel television show/movie would never have anything so pompous in its introduction.

 

[resmoplus]

"No one" if no one - man or animal". "No man" if no man, but animals.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Man.

We all know it was meant as a short version of "mankind."

 

[T'Girl]

... would never have anything so pompous in its introduction.

So Picard truely is gone forever.

 

[Deckerd]

... would never have anything so pompous in its introduction.

So Picard truely is gone forever.

Are you disagreeing with me? You think television producers would script something like that at the beginning of a 21st century space opera?

 

[BlobVanDam]

And no man still seems kind of exclusive, even though we retroactively apply it to mean humans in general.

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.

Retroactively was the wrong word, but you know what I mean. The fact is that the word man means male, even if it also means humans in general. It was sort of sexist from the very beginning, even if it's always applied to both.

As much as I mostly hate the forced political correctness of recent gender neutral terms, I still think "no one" is a much better fit in this context, especially in a future society where we are supposed to be equals. That wasn't the case in TOS, which had a sexist '60s attitude, but in TNG, I'm glad they changed it.

 

[Deckerd]

I recall the first time I watched The Next Generation and heard Picard's speech at the introduction, thinking it sounded right. The semantics of no one are no less problematical than no man but it sounds better.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

decided it was somehow exclusionary

Retroactively was the wrong word, but you know what I mean. The fact is that the word man means male, even if it also means humans in general. It was sort of sexist from the very beginning, even if it's always applied to both.

.

No, its not. In the context used it clearly means, and has always meant, "mankind." Any other interpretation is retroactive, P.C. B.S.

 

[T'Girl]

[Are you disagreeing with me? You think television producers would script something like that at the beginning of a 21st century space opera?

Perhaps in the next series, the opening monolog should be ...

"To boldly go, where man has not gone before."

 

[Deckerd]

They don't do spechifying at the beginning any more. Mind you I hate the 'previously on' rubbish which just cuts into the episode time.

 

[BlobVanDam]

decided it was somehow exclusionary

Retroactively was the wrong word, but you know what I mean. The fact is that the word man means male, even if it also means humans in general. It was sort of sexist from the very beginning, even if it's always applied to both.

.

No, its not. In the context used it clearly means, and has always meant, "mankind." Any other interpretation is retroactive, P.C. B.S.

What differentiates it in context from meaning male? At least the word mankind only has one meaning, so there's no problem there, but not man. Society has changed a lot since TOS. And terminology changes to reflect that. I'm not much for political correctness, but I don't know why you are so against this.

 

[antiquityscion]

How about "To boldly go where no "hew-mon" (in Ferengi vernacular) has gone before?"

 

[BlobVanDam]

How about "To boldly go where no "hew-mon" (in Ferengi vernacular) has gone before?"

I'd rather it dubbed with Kirk's grunty "human" from the end of TWOK.

 

[antiquityscion]

that would work too!

 

[Elder Knight]

I sensed that they'd change the line for TNG, but at least they didn't try "Where no person has gone before."

 

[Elder Knight]

I sensed that they'd change the line for TNG, but at least they didn't try "Where no person has gone before."

 

[JarodRussell]

Which one do you like better?

Me, "no man" sounds more epic, but "no one" is good too.

It sounds all the same.

 

[Kelthaz]

I prefer "no one". The lack of sexism is a big plus.