"Where No Man Has Gone Before"

[TigerOfDarkness]

Well, it seemed to me (back in the 60's) to mean all mankind.

As language evolves, it could be that by Kirk's time, it would mean all races.

Taking this to the extreme, it could be argued that saying "no one" could be taken to exclude races with multiple pesonalities, collective conciousness or hive beings.....

 

[WillsBabe]

When I originally watched TOS, I took "man" to mean mankind. After TNG changed it to "one" I now think of "man" to mean male, a man. I never used to have a problem with the use of the word "man" to mean "mankind", "humanity" until recently when I read an article about proto-Humans. I read, oh, I dunno, 90% of the article, finding it interesting until it started talking about how "man" treat his women. At that point I realised that the article was not aimed at me, a female reader but at male readers and was talking about men and their women. Made me feel oddly let down.

 

[TigerOfDarkness]

Of course, another interpretation is that Kirk does indeed mean where no men have gone before because up to that point, only women were allowed aboard starships.

 

[Myasishchev]

It would certainly be bolder than before if the ship were to go where no species known to the Federation had gone before, rather than merely where no human had!

I dunno. Sounds awfully boring when they show up where no one's gone before--and find nothing there.

 

[darkshadow0001]

Well, it seemed to me (back in the 60's) to mean all mankind.

As language evolves, it could be that by Kirk's time, it would mean all races.

Taking this to the extreme, it could be argued that saying "no one" could be taken to exclude races with multiple pesonalities, collective conciousness or hive beings.....

See I always thought 'man' meant for the male ego and that was it. I know that women and african-americans were also a part of TOS, but for the social time of the 60's I always thought it meant for the males and no one else is above them (not that I believe that way myself) and when TNG took over, I figured "No One" meant "all of mankind-- women, and everyone else". I don't know, I could be wrong

 

[Timo]

I dunno. Sounds awfully boring when they show up where no one's gone before--and find nothing there.

Well, they did exactly that in the episode titled "Where No One Has Gone Before"...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

"...where no man has gone before" = "going into no man's land." = a guy going into a Victoria's Secret shop...by himself.

 

[JustKate]

I just have to add - because yes, I am that much of a geek - that there is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive. There is no rule against it, and never has been, no matter what your English teacher told you, and all sorts of wonderful writers have done so when they decided it was a good idea. Rather than a rule, what it was was a very common (among grammar geeks) dislike. But "disliked by some at some points in English's history" does not equal "not allowable in standard English."

While keeping the two parts of an infitive together is often a sensible idea, there are in fact times when splitting the infinitive is the best option. Anyway, I think "to boldly go" sounds...well, bolder than "to go boldly." It puts more emphasis on "boldly."

But I digress. Sorry - didn't mean to interrupt the "where no man/one has gone before" discussion.

 

[Deckerd]

"In our century, we've learned not to fear words"

One of Trek's more facile truisms, I always thought. The way we construct language creates the underpinnings for how we think about our experiences. There are few things with such insidious power as words.

I think I can guess before we get into it that our views on the importance of inclusive language are likely to set us at loggerheads.

Absolutely right. For humans, there is nothing more powerful than language.

It was a natural '80s thang to change 'man' to 'one'. It sums up the decade in a way. Man may well have evolved to mean 'mankind' but it does grate to modern ears.

 

[TigerOfDarkness]

While keeping the two parts of an infitive together is often a sensible idea, there are in fact times when splitting the infinitive is the best option. Anyway, I think "to boldly go" sounds...well, bolder than "to go boldly." It puts more emphasis on "boldly."

Also sounds much better than "boldly to go" which, IIRC Cochran says in an episode of ENT.

 

[plynch]

While keeping the two parts of an infitive together is often a sensible idea, there are in fact times when splitting the infinitive is the best option. Anyway, I think "to boldly go" sounds...well, bolder than "to go boldly." It puts more emphasis on "boldly."

Also sounds much better than "boldly to go" which, IIRC Cochran says in an episode of ENT.

"To go boldly" is preferable. But the original Kirk utterance has the best cadence. The whole thing is a rule due to a quirk of Latin (see above). It was, however, a "rule" if it was taught by many English teachers. There is no official rule book other than the rules we're taught. And good writers violate harder and faster rules than that.

As to the geekiness of this line of grammar comments, how is it geekier than wondering why and how fictional characters changed a fictional aphorism in their "universe," when it was really just a cool saying made for 60s tv?

Be well. Go boldly. If you want to.

 

[Dane_Whitman]

I like the in universe explanation for the change from "no man" to "no one" coming off the Khitomer peace treaty with the Klingons in Star Trek VI. It was a sign of inclusiveness and rapprochement, that the Federation was no longer a "Homo Sapiens Only Club", and that the spirit of exploration was to be found in people of all species.

I really like this explanation. Funny, I never really thought about it in that way.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I didn't know they'd gone back to 'man' in Ent and XI. That's really interesting.

Cause I presume the original reason for the change for TNG is that social sensibilities in the real world had evolved far enough to recognise the preferability of inclusive language.

But if they're reverting to 'man', that means that the artistic decision is to make the switch from 'man' to 'one' an in-universe change which takes place sometime in the hundred years between TOS and TNG.

I guess it might be about a certain nostalgia factor, signalling Trek going back to its roots, but it does set up a slighty depressing in-universe idea that inclusive official language didn't make it off the ground in the Trekverse until at least the late 23rd century.

All of that is true.

Of course, by Picard's time Starfleet is composed of a significant percentage of non-humans who are even less likely to acknowledge the hoary cliche that "we all know that 'man' means everybody" than contemporary western humans are.