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

[Tom]

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.

I think you all are wrong saying man = mankind, as Neil used them.

man = biological creature, not singular.

mankind = entire existence of man, including evolution and history.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Tom

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.

I think you all are wrong saying man = mankind, as Neil used them.

man = biological creature, not singular.

mankind = entire existence of man, including evolution and history.

He said "a man" and the "a" was lost in the transmission.

"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" doesn't make any sense to say. It has nothing to do with grammar or being anal-- The fact is that if you use the "man" without an article, it refers to all humans which is the same thing as MANKIND.