GRAMMAR NAZIS: Tell me why it matters whether Neil Armstrong said "for man" versus "for a man"

[sygyzy]

When was this ever an issue?

 

[randay]

Who cares? It never even really happened, right?

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
the articles (a, the) don't exist in most languages for a good reason- they don't have valid purpose.

I rather think that the obvious disparity in meaning between the two statements illustrated in this thread is sufficient evidence that your claim is invalid.

ZV

I think there are better ways to show that disparity. And other languages work just fine without articles.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
the articles (a, the) don't exist in most languages for a good reason- they don't have valid purpose.

I rather think that the obvious disparity in meaning between the two statements illustrated in this thread is sufficient evidence that your claim is invalid.

ZV

I think there are better ways to show that disparity. And other languages work just fine without articles.

¿Per ejemplo...?

 

[DanTMWTMP]

lol, i never even thought of up until i saw it on ATOT.

 

[badmouse]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
[ What he said and what was received are two different things.

What Armstrong said: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

What was received: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

The "a" was lost in some static.

ZV

This is an old nerd thing. His famous line was, of course, written in advance, and the geeky dudes on earty waited eagerly for him to utter the immortal words. But when the time came, the "a" wasn't there - did he forget? Did he do it on purpose? Glitch? WHAT HAPPENED?

Nerds never forget.

 

[eits]

"a man" = any average joe

"man" = the entire species of human beings

significant difference in meaning.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: her209
Why the f*ck does it matter?

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

"That's one small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind,"

"man" equates to "mankind"

"A man" means just him.

man != mankind. man = the entire human species. mankind = humanistic quality of man.

mankind = good faith/generosity/kindness/etc.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CarlKillerMiller
I'd always thought that it was because the meanings of "a man" and "man" are different. "A man" is just some guy, while "man" refers to the whole race of man.

Exactly: Man = Mankind. So without the "a" what he said would be that it's both a "small step" and a "giant leap", which is contradictory.

that would only be true if man = mankind, which it doesn't.

 

[crystal]

Who here think that there was a script for him to say what he said, but he bungled it up in the exciment.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CarlKillerMiller
I'd always thought that it was because the meanings of "a man" and "man" are different. "A man" is just some guy, while "man" refers to the whole race of man.

Exactly: Man = Mankind. So without the "a" what he said would be that it's both a "small step" and a "giant leap", which is contradictory.

that would only be true if man = mankind, which it doesn't.

In that usage it would have.

 

[imported_LoKe]

"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" is correct, the other is not, plain and simple. BUT WHY!?

"One small step for a man" is in regards to the small step he took on the moon, yes, that he took. That "small step" was for him, "a man". The "giant leap" was for all men, aka, mankind. How is that so hard to understand?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: her209
Why the f*ck does it matter?

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

"That's one small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind,"

it matters only to those who are anal about such things.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: her209
Why the f*ck does it matter?

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

"That's one small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind,"

it matters only to those who are anal about such things.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: eits
man != mankind. man = the entire human species. mankind = humanistic quality of man.

mankind = good faith/generosity/kindness/etc.

ORLY?

man?kind

1. the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind.
2. men, as distinguished from women.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CarlKillerMiller
I'd always thought that it was because the meanings of "a man" and "man" are different. "A man" is just some guy, while "man" refers to the whole race of man.

Exactly: Man = Mankind. So without the "a" what he said would be that it's both a "small step" and a "giant leap", which is contradictory.

that would only be true if man = mankind, which it doesn't.

Yes it does.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Oscar1613

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski
Whatever he said is the correct thing to quote. Grammar Nazi's be damned! However, Rapid is correct.

What he said and what was received are two different things.

What Armstrong said: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

What was received: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

The "a" was lost in some static.

ZV

no he actually forgot to say "a" and you can notice he hesitates as he immediately realized it

That's what I thought too, but apparantly ZV is right -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That%27s_o..._for_man%2C_one_giant_leap_for_mankind

Could just be a government cover-up.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: eits
man != mankind. man = the entire human species. mankind = humanistic quality of man.

mankind = good faith/generosity/kindness/etc.

ORLY?

man?kind

1. the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind.
2. men, as distinguished from women.

I think eits is confusing mankind with humanity:

hu·man·i·ty (hyu-man'i-te) pronunciation
n., pl. -ties.

1. Humans considered as a group; the human race.
2. The condition or quality of being human.
3. The quality of being humane; benevolence.
4. A humane characteristic, attribute, or act.
5. humanities
1. The languages and literatures of ancient Greece and Rome; the classics.
2. Those branches of knowledge, such as philosophy, literature, and art, that are concerned with human thought and culture; the liberal arts.

 

[SaltBoy]

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words - "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean ? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
It doesn't. It's called a "slow news day"

I thought that was every day on cable news?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: SaltBoy
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words - "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean ? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.

Was that from a movie or TV show?

 

[SaltBoy]

Maybe Armstrong meant to say: "That's one small step for THE man."

After all, Armstrong was the man.

 

[SaltBoy]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SaltBoy
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words - "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean ? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.

Was that from a movie or TV show?

Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy (SNL)

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Oscar1613

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: sandorski
Whatever he said is the correct thing to quote. Grammar Nazi's be damned! However, Rapid is correct.

What he said and what was received are two different things.

What Armstrong said: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

What was received: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

The "a" was lost in some static.

ZV

no he actually forgot to say "a" and you can notice he hesitates as he immediately realized it

That's what I thought too, but apparantly ZV is right -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That%27s_o..._for_man%2C_one_giant_leap_for_mankind

Could just be a government cover-up.

The "hesitation" always sounded to me like a transmission problem. Like when the cable has audio issues.

ZV

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: eits
man != mankind. man = the entire human species. mankind = humanistic quality of man.

mankind = good faith/generosity/kindness/etc.

ORLY?

man?kind

1. the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind.
2. men, as distinguished from women.

I think eits is confusing mankind with humanity:

hu·man·i·ty (hyu-man'i-te) pronunciation
n., pl. -ties.

1. Humans considered as a group; the human race.
2. The condition or quality of being human.
3. The quality of being humane; benevolence.
4. A humane characteristic, attribute, or act.
5. humanities
1. The languages and literatures of ancient Greece and Rome; the classics.
2. Those branches of knowledge, such as philosophy, literature, and art, that are concerned with human thought and culture; the liberal arts.

I think you're right, but the first definition could still have applied.