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

[LaBarre]

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.

I sympathise.

My personal bugbear is the American tendency to replace the term “I couldn't care less” with “I could care less”, which is absurd.

But the fact is that meanings and interpretations of words evolve and change, quite often coming to mean the exact opposite of their original definition. Off the top of my head, the following words no longer mean what they once did and the commonality or otherwise of their usage reflects this gradual change:

Gay
Negro
Terrific
Fulsome
Awful

“Authoress” is no longer in common usage to describe a female author, yet “actress” is still more popular than the generic alternative - “actor”. Why?

Since 1989, some terms have become almost useless as a shorthand conveying of one's overall political/ideological outlook in much of the Anglo world:

Left wing
Right wing
conservative
liberal

Only “communist” and “fascist” retain some of the power of meaning they once held, and yet because of their widespread use as a form of personal abuse in the bloggers-sphere, they too are beginning to lose impact. “Zionist” is increasingly used in this way. Interestingly, its originally secular meaning has also changed so as to be commonly used today as a descriptor of religious Jewish Israelis.

Patrick Stewart has always been more than happy to describe himself as a “socialist,” and this is still generally a positively understood term in western Europe. In the USA, it is almost interchangeable with “communist.”

“Fundamentalist” is today a term of abuse while progressive” is being adopted by the hip-and-happening-crowd.

Long story short, the English language is a mongrel, constantly adopting and adapting foreign words and phrases, tipping long-standing meanings of English words on their head, and it's consequently all the more dynamic.

I personally favour “no one” to “no man” in the Trek intro, but what counts as far as the English language is concerned is which of the two is more generally received and becomes common usage. I'd suggest that time is beginning to tell.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

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

Obviously, by "most people," I mean most people whose views on the matter I have encountered, either personally or through various media. I believe, especially with all the media options we have today, that my exposure is wide enough to allow me to form reasonably accurate conclusions of what I suppose might be called the "conventional wisdom" or some such. Obviously, if I were exposing myself to only a very narrow and homogeneous range of ideas and opinion, my outlook might be skew, but I don't believe that is the case.

 

[Deckerd]

Well I have to say I've lived my life surrounded by English speaking people and I haven't encountered any conclusive evidence one way or the other since it's not exactly a common topic of conversation. I certainly wouldn't stick my neck out and suggest that the opposite opinion to mine was 'posturing' since I freely admit it's just my opinion. I can't claim to have a tap into conventional wisdom on something so random.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

^ Actually, you may have something there. I haven't really seen the issue addressed all that often in the media...and when it is, it's usually focused on someone on one extreme or the other.

As far as personal encounters, I do know a couple of people who really do seriously - even passionately - insist that words like "man" and "mankind" were deliberately created to be sexist and used for evil purposes. I'll admit I can't quite take them seriously. (And if any of my posts above seemed overly belligerent, I was probably thinking of those two while I was writing it. )

I also know a few people who consider themselves, by their own definition, to be "hardcore feminists" who also think the two I mentioned above have gone overboard. They also agree that pushing it to the extent they do mostly succeeds only in giving the "opposition" something to point at and ridicule.

 

[SPCTRE]

My personal bugbear is the American tendency to replace the term “I couldn't care less” with “I could care less”, which is absurd.

Oh God yes, I know I shouldn't get upset about this kind of stuff, but that particular phrase drives me nucking futs

 

[scotpens]

Off the top of my head, the following words no longer mean what they once did and the commonality or otherwise of their usage reflects this gradual change:

Gay
Negro
Terrific
Fulsome
Awful

"Gay" has been used to mean "homosexual" at least since the 1920s, although it was considered slang or a kind of code word until it went mainstream in the 1970s and '80s. It's a bit unfortunate that the original meaning of "joyous" or "merry" is now, for all intents and purposes, obsolete.

As for "Negro," it still means what it always meant. It's just a term that has gone out of fashion, like "Mohammedan" for Muslim or "Hindustani" for the Hindi language.

“Authoress” is no longer in common usage to describe a female author, yet “actress” is still more popular than the generic alternative - “actor”. Why?

A lot of modern media do use the word "actor" for a performer of either sex, as do many younger people in the entertainment industry. Personally, I see nothing wrong with "actress." It has a charm and grandeur to it. It still sounds odd to me when a woman is referred to as an "actor." But then, I'm an old fart.

 

[LaBarre]

^
scotpens - wood v trees, I'm afraid.

You confirm what I said on a very literal level with regard to the examples I provided. Obviously I have no dispute with you insofar as that goes. Yet you completely disregard the overall message I was trying to convey (using these examples and others along the way), i.e.:

Long story short, the English language is a mongrel, constantly adopting and adapting foreign words and phrases, tipping long-standing meanings of English words on their head, and it's consequently all the more dynamic.

It is in that context that I say "one" rather than "man" is gradually becoming the standard in the English-speaking world. This is not to say it won't revert at some future point or indeed adopt some other term altogether.

 

[Hofner]

A medieval example of the use of "man" as in "the human race" is the movie 2001 with the sequence entitled "The Dawn Of Man". Hey, maybe the real reason Hal went nuts and started killing is because "man" not only excludes women but also excludes computers.

Robert

 

[Elder Knight]

They could have gotten Cheech or Chong to narrate the intro:

"Man, like to boldly go, man, like, man, where no one, man, has gone before, man."

 

[Anticitizen]

Yeesh. It's all about context. IN THIS CONTEXT, 'man' means 'mankind'. Words seldom stand alone; half the meaning of words is in the context.

Therefore, I vote for 'where no man has gone before'. Just rolls off the tongue better and is more accurate in describing Earthlings.

 

[MikeS]

Patrick Stewart has always been more than happy to describe himself as a “socialist,” and this is still generally a positively understood term in western Europe. In the USA, it is almost interchangeable with “communist.”QUOTE]

 

[Deckerd]

Yeesh. It's all about context. IN THIS CONTEXT, 'man' means 'mankind'. Words seldom stand alone; half the meaning of words is in the context.

Therefore, I vote for 'where no man has gone before'. Just rolls off the tongue better and is more accurate in describing Earthlings.

"Earthlings"?

What are you; a 1950's B movie?

 

[scotpens]

. . . I vote for 'where no man has gone before'. Just rolls off the tongue better and is more accurate in describing Earthlings.

“Earthlings”?

What are you; a 1950's B movie?

Yes, everyone knows that in the Trekverse, people from Earth are called humans or Terrans — except when derogatorily referred to as “Earthers.”

 

[C.E. Evans]

^^^
And "Earthians" just doesn't sound right for some reason...