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

[Gary7]

"Man" does sound better to me. It's not sexist--we all know that "man" is short for "human".

To be more accurate, they should have said "To boldly go where few have gone before." But of course, it doesn't have much poetry to it.


Btw, Armstrong did say "One small step for a man. One giant leap for mankind." Part of the transmission was lost for a split second. But I think it's fine either way.

 

[T'Girl]

Btw, Armstrong did say "One small step for a man. One giant leap for mankind." Part of the transmission was lost for a split second.

How do you figure? There's no indication of a gap between "for" and "man." What Armstrong intended to say, while interesting, is ultimately historically irrelevant.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxlp1Xhb6z4[/yt]

 

[Admiral Shran]

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

That might work for the P.C. crowd, since "hew-mon" doesn't have the word "man" in it.

 

[scotpens]

How about “To boldy go where no man, woman, neuter, androgyne, hermaphrodite, or transgendered person has gone before”? That ought to be inclusive enough.

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.

In a series with continuing story arcs and plotlines that stretch over several episodes, the short recap helps refresh the viewer’s memory of what’s happened up to that point — just like the old movie serials used to do.

The only time Trek TOS did that was in Part 2 of the two-part ep “The Menagerie.”

There's no indication of a gap between “for” and “man.” What Armstrong intended to say, while interesting, is ultimately historically irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all. What Armstrong meant to say is generally how the line has gone down in history.

BTW, Armstrong himself finally admitted that he blew the line.

 

[Gary7]

How do you figure? There's no indication of a gap between "for" and "man." What Armstrong intended to say, while interesting, is ultimately historically irrelevant.

Actually, I was partially wrong. There was a breakup in the second sentence, not the first. It does sound to me more like "one small step fora man", pushing 'for' and 'a' together.

 

[MikeS]

In all your rewrites of the line no-one mentioned it should be "To go boldly..."

...or is that another issue?!

I'm with most of you here in prefering "man", as in "mankind".

 

[scotpens]

In all your rewrites of the line no-one mentioned it should be "To go boldly..."

...or is that another issue?!

Repeat after me:
There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive!
There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive!
There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive!

 

[MikeS]

In all your rewrites of the line no-one mentioned it should be "To go boldly..."

...or is that another issue?!

Repeat after me:
There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive!
There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive!
There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive!

It would appear the rule has been altered (or just taught properly) since I left school.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/150458.stm

I was just stating what I was taught.

 

[Elder Knight]

The sort of nonsense up with which we will not put.

 

[Arpy]

One. What does it take from me to be historically aware?

Besides, it doesnt matter that "man" means "mankind:" it's still mankind.

And it could be where no one (from the Federation) has gone before. Or, literally where no one has gone before: space is mostly unpopulated.

That "man" sounds smoother off the tongue because of the consonant m, well, what can you do? It does. But what's more important the sounds of the words or their impact? "Hail Hitler" has a forceful alliterative salutory charm, but we haven't held on to it. I say give the "one" strong "w" sound and claim it proudly.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive!
There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive!
There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive!

You are, of course, correct.

Which brings to mind an interesting question: Which is worse: the anal-retentive teachers who taught us never to split infinitives, or the PC-infested teachers who are apparently (judging by some of the posts in this thread) refusing to teach the correct and complete definition of "man"?

 

[Deckerd]

The meaning of 'man' has changed in recent times (never mind scotpens and his medieval irrelevances*). Everyone knows that it can historically mean mankind but everyone also knows instinctively that there's something ever so slightly suspect with using only one half of the human race to denote the whole.

*even then 'man' could mean a man, especially in the plural.


Since the correct scientific name is homo, what modern space captains should be saying is 'where no homo has gone before'.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

The meaning of 'man' has changed in recent times

Sorry. Not buyin' it.

The meaning of words do not change just because some people want them to. The words "man" and "mankind" are still quite widely used and still quite acceptable with their "traditional" meanings.

Besides, those words have never been meant to be any kind of affront to women, and pretending they have is nothing more than politically-correct posturing.

 

[Arpy]

Hey, the meanings of words do change because people want them to. I.e. To know someone "in the Biblical sense" is not the same as to know them in the current one.

And I think the problem here is a lot of "reverse" political correctness given that women were second class citizens. We didn't like it so we changed it, but it happened and the language reflected it.

If you want to reclaim man, great, but we're going to have this discussion again when we meet aliens and have to alter laws and language to redefine a "person" all over again.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

Hey, the meanings of words do change because people want them to.

Actually, no. Over long spans of time, the definition of words can evolve as new meanings are associated with them by the majority of the public, but words do not just suddenly change meaning because some subset of the people decides they should.

Our dictionaries today have not all become obsolete just because some people want to be offended by a word like "man" or "mankind" and use it to make political points.

We didn't like it so we changed it, but it happened and the language reflected it.

It is reflected in the way some people have modifed their use of language (saying "he or she," for instance, rather than just "he"), but the word "man" has not changed. Check your dictionary.

If you want to reclaim man, great, but we're going to have this discussion again when we meet aliens and have to alter laws and language to redefine a "person" all over again.

Careful. Here amongst us Trek fans, this might not cause you much trouble, but out in the "normal" world, arguing about what we'll need to do "when we meet aliens" might seem, to those you might be trying to convince, even more frivolous than taking offense at the consecutive letters M-A-N in a word.

 

[scotpens]

The sort of nonsense up with which we will not put.

That’s a sentence (well, actually a sentence fragment) that ends with a preposition, which is also perfectly acceptable.

I believe it was Raymond Chandler who said: “When I split an infinitive, I mean it to damn well stay split!”

 

[Deckerd]

Actually, no. Over long spans of time, the definition of words can evolve as new meanings are associated with them by the majority of the public, but words do not just suddenly change meaning because some subset of the people decides they should.

Our dictionaries today have not all become obsolete just because some people want to be offended by a word like "man" or "mankind" and use it to make political points.

It is reflected in the way some people have modifed their use of language (saying "he or she," for instance, rather than just "he"), but the word "man" has not changed. Check your dictionary.

What's the difference between 'evolve' and 'change'? Answer: in the field of semantics: nothing. I posted earlier on that what he should have said is 'where no homo has gone before'. This was obviously a joke because the official classification for our species has been hijacked so thoroughly by one group.

The reason English has more words than any other language is precisely because the OED never lets a meaning go, once it has been coined. That doesn't mean that old and obsolete meanings are still used in modern speech because they ain't.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

^ But the traditional meanings of "man" and "mankind" have not become obsolete. I know there are some who think they should, but that doesn't make it so.

Most people just don't take the argument that "man" and "mankind" are offensive and sexist because they contain the word "man" seriously. It comes across as frivolous, and only serves to trivialize the issue of sexual equality, which should be treated seriously. It's the kind of thing that plays well to the choir, but is very detrimental to effective advocacy.

 

[Arpy]

I think it plays fine. I think that many people just want to keep things as they are. Whether because they themselves don't mean any harm or because they just like the way mankind sounds. And that if someone honestly disagrees with them well then obviously they're brainwashed or otherwise odious politically correct drones and the world's headed for Orwell's 1984.

Regarding my use of hypothetical aliens, there's about a half dozen different points to be made there - including how I was being a little playful on this TREKbbs, and how the "normal" people who can't deal with that can blow me.

And remember when Ronald Reagan used'em at the UN? ...Well if they're good enough for the leader of the free world... Nanu nanu!

 

[Deckerd]

^ But the traditional meanings of "man" and "mankind" have not become obsolete. I know there are some who think they should, but that doesn't make it so.

Most people just don't take the argument that "man" and "mankind" are offensive and sexist because they contain the word "man" seriously. It comes across as frivolous, and only serves to trivialize the issue of sexual equality, which should be treated seriously. It's the kind of thing that plays well to the choir, but is very detrimental to effective advocacy.

Most people? Upon what authority do you base this claim?