<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Remembering Neil Armstrong and his "one small step"</title>
	<atom:link href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 19:44:59 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nathan Myers</title>
		<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-241686</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan Myers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2012 06:19:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-241686</guid>
		<description>I was 7 when heard it, live, and thought it odd then, and that nobody else seemed to notice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was 7 when heard it, live, and thought it odd then, and that nobody else seemed to notice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Breffni</title>
		<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-239263</link>
		<dc:creator>Breffni</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:20:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-239263</guid>
		<description>Nathan:

&lt;blockquote&gt;@jan The second vowel in "Amman" is /ɑ/, not /æ/.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

As usual with these things, that depends on your dialect. In Irish English, 'Amman' and 'a man' are indeed homophones, with the second vowel realised as [a:] (in my case anyway). I think the same would be true of some English dialects.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nathan:</p>
<blockquote><p>@jan The second vowel in "Amman" is /ɑ/, not /æ/.</p></blockquote>
<p>As usual with these things, that depends on your dialect. In Irish English, 'Amman' and 'a man' are indeed homophones, with the second vowel realised as [a:] (in my case anyway). I think the same would be true of some English dialects.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J.W. Brewer</title>
		<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237894</link>
		<dc:creator>J.W. Brewer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 21:57:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237894</guid>
		<description>While Armstrong may have come up with the line himself while en route and w/o oversight or script-doctoring from Houston, presumably its resemblance to the wording on the plaque on the LEM which must have resulted from some larger drafting-and-consultation process ("HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON JULY 1969, A.D. WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND.") is not coincidental insofar as it makes the same individual(s)-on-behalf-of-whole-species point.  "Men" of course does not need an article to clarify that in context it means particular individual men as opposed to men-in-general.   

Note also the perhaps different semantics of anarthrous "man" in the last words spoken while still on the lunar surface by the last individual man to have stood there to date (Eugene Cernan):  "I'm on the surface; and, as I take man's last step from the surface, back home for some time to come — but we believe not too long into the future — I'd like to just [say] what I believe history will record. That America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow. And, as we leave the Moon at Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return: with peace and hope for all mankind. Godspeed the crew of Apollo 17."  I expect that I was not alone in believing at the time that "not too long" could not possibly stretch out to as long as almost 40 years and counting.  In terms of the genericity of "man" in the relevant variety of English at the relevant time, while NASA's astronauts as of that point had been exclusively male (although the Soviets had already had one female cosmonaut), by the time Apollo 17 reached the moon, we had already sent off into space the first of the "Pioneer plaques" depicting for the information of potential future extraerrestrial viewers both the vir and femina models of homo sapiens.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While Armstrong may have come up with the line himself while en route and w/o oversight or script-doctoring from Houston, presumably its resemblance to the wording on the plaque on the LEM which must have resulted from some larger drafting-and-consultation process ("HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON JULY 1969, A.D. WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND.") is not coincidental insofar as it makes the same individual(s)-on-behalf-of-whole-species point.  "Men" of course does not need an article to clarify that in context it means particular individual men as opposed to men-in-general.   </p>
<p>Note also the perhaps different semantics of anarthrous "man" in the last words spoken while still on the lunar surface by the last individual man to have stood there to date (Eugene Cernan):  "I'm on the surface; and, as I take man's last step from the surface, back home for some time to come — but we believe not too long into the future — I'd like to just [say] what I believe history will record. That America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow. And, as we leave the Moon at Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return: with peace and hope for all mankind. Godspeed the crew of Apollo 17."  I expect that I was not alone in believing at the time that "not too long" could not possibly stretch out to as long as almost 40 years and counting.  In terms of the genericity of "man" in the relevant variety of English at the relevant time, while NASA's astronauts as of that point had been exclusively male (although the Soviets had already had one female cosmonaut), by the time Apollo 17 reached the moon, we had already sent off into space the first of the "Pioneer plaques" depicting for the information of potential future extraerrestrial viewers both the vir and femina models of homo sapiens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brad Daniels</title>
		<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237874</link>
		<dc:creator>Brad Daniels</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 20:39:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237874</guid>
		<description>I personally believe that he actually did say "a man", but the video from the Silence was inserted at that point in the recording, making it so that no one can remember hearing it.

[&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Moon" rel="nofollow"&gt;Doctor Who reference&lt;/a&gt;, in case the above makes no sense to you.]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I personally believe that he actually did say "a man", but the video from the Silence was inserted at that point in the recording, making it so that no one can remember hearing it.</p>
<p>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Moon" rel="nofollow">Doctor Who reference</a>, in case the above makes no sense to you.]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barbara Phillips Long</title>
		<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237805</link>
		<dc:creator>Barbara Phillips Long</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:21:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237805</guid>
		<description>Oops. I "had just graduated" or "was just out of high school" when the landing was broadcast...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops. I "had just graduated" or "was just out of high school" when the landing was broadcast&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barbara Phillips Long</title>
		<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237799</link>
		<dc:creator>Barbara Phillips Long</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:17:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237799</guid>
		<description>I had just out of high school when the landing was broadcast and Neil Armstrong made his statement. I can't remember what I thought about the quote at the time. This discussion highlights the fact that I never analyzed the language in the quote, I just continued to react to Armstrong's words with emotion.

Although I may not have noticed the lack of an article, I did feel that "man" was a smaller subset of "mankind." 

I have interpreted his statement as a contrast between physical effort it took to make an idea reality, as opposed to a goal many faithful believers supported and saw as a turning point in life as we knew it. "Here's the physical step man is taking onto the surface of the moon after doing all this research and manufacturing and preparation, and it represents a major triumph in human history that all people, even those who are not here on the moon, can be proud of." 

Or, "I've achieved something for my group, but we can't take exclusive credit for such a historic moment."

A few years ago I met an Eastern European man who assured me that the whole moonwalk was cooked up in a television studio. He left his country to settle in the U.S., and it seemed to me that his childhood in a country in the Soviet bloc had predisposed him to reject the moonwalk. I wonder what he's thinking now -- that that conspirator Armstrong is never going to come clean? How sad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had just out of high school when the landing was broadcast and Neil Armstrong made his statement. I can't remember what I thought about the quote at the time. This discussion highlights the fact that I never analyzed the language in the quote, I just continued to react to Armstrong's words with emotion.</p>
<p>Although I may not have noticed the lack of an article, I did feel that "man" was a smaller subset of "mankind." </p>
<p>I have interpreted his statement as a contrast between physical effort it took to make an idea reality, as opposed to a goal many faithful believers supported and saw as a turning point in life as we knew it. "Here's the physical step man is taking onto the surface of the moon after doing all this research and manufacturing and preparation, and it represents a major triumph in human history that all people, even those who are not here on the moon, can be proud of." </p>
<p>Or, "I've achieved something for my group, but we can't take exclusive credit for such a historic moment."</p>
<p>A few years ago I met an Eastern European man who assured me that the whole moonwalk was cooked up in a television studio. He left his country to settle in the U.S., and it seemed to me that his childhood in a country in the Soviet bloc had predisposed him to reject the moonwalk. I wonder what he's thinking now &#8212; that that conspirator Armstrong is never going to come clean? How sad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathon</title>
		<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237787</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:57:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237787</guid>
		<description>Ellen K.: Forgive me for my poor wording. I was responding to JMM's post about how "man" (without the "a") meant "any human". As Nick Lamb said, I was writing specifically in context of Armstrong's line. What I really meant is that without the article (leaving aside the issue of sexist language for the moment), "man" does not and cannot mean "any human". You need an article to make it singular and indefinite. Otherwise it's a mass noun meaning "humanity". I did not mean that "a man" is normally interpreted to mean "any human", though I think you could argue that that was the intended meaning back when Armstrong said it. As Army1987 said, the gender-neutral use of "man" was still common in the 1960s.

And by the way, my name is Jonathon, not Jonathan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ellen K.: Forgive me for my poor wording. I was responding to JMM's post about how "man" (without the "a") meant "any human". As Nick Lamb said, I was writing specifically in context of Armstrong's line. What I really meant is that without the article (leaving aside the issue of sexist language for the moment), "man" does not and cannot mean "any human". You need an article to make it singular and indefinite. Otherwise it's a mass noun meaning "humanity". I did not mean that "a man" is normally interpreted to mean "any human", though I think you could argue that that was the intended meaning back when Armstrong said it. As Army1987 said, the gender-neutral use of "man" was still common in the 1960s.</p>
<p>And by the way, my name is Jonathon, not Jonathan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: languagehat</title>
		<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237747</link>
		<dc:creator>languagehat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:02:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237747</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;But he maintained that he didn't think he'd missed the "a", and only realised he had when he heard the tape, so that weakens my theory somewhat!&lt;/i&gt;

You can't trust people's memories; I realized that based on self-observation long ago, and everything science has learned in studying memory and the mind confirms it.

The comments here claiming that it made good sense without the "a" amuse me -- people have a virtually infinite capacity for finding meaning where there is no apparent ground for it (cf. people who think "gray" is different from "grey").</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>But he maintained that he didn't think he'd missed the "a", and only realised he had when he heard the tape, so that weakens my theory somewhat!</i></p>
<p>You can't trust people's memories; I realized that based on self-observation long ago, and everything science has learned in studying memory and the mind confirms it.</p>
<p>The comments here claiming that it made good sense without the "a" amuse me &#8212; people have a virtually infinite capacity for finding meaning where there is no apparent ground for it (cf. people who think "gray" is different from "grey").</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Acilius</title>
		<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237732</link>
		<dc:creator>Acilius</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237732</guid>
		<description>My favorite variation on Armstrong's statement was the first comment Captain Pete Conrad made when he set foot on the lunar surface as commander of Apollo 12.  "Whoopee!  Man, that may been a small one for Neil, but that was a long one for me."  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEEIJYrXn9s</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My favorite variation on Armstrong's statement was the first comment Captain Pete Conrad made when he set foot on the lunar surface as commander of Apollo 12.  "Whoopee!  Man, that may been a small one for Neil, but that was a long one for me."  <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEEIJYrXn9s" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEEIJYrXn9s</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237731</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:15:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237731</guid>
		<description>Listening to the recording of that famous line, it always sounds to me as if Neil realised halfway through the line that he'd fluffed it. There's a distinct pause after "That's one small step for man" and then he rushes through the second half of the sentence, trailing off almost apologetically. 

But he maintained that he didn't think he'd missed the "a", and only realised he had when he heard the tape, so that weakens my theory somewhat!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Listening to the recording of that famous line, it always sounds to me as if Neil realised halfway through the line that he'd fluffed it. There's a distinct pause after "That's one small step for man" and then he rushes through the second half of the sentence, trailing off almost apologetically. </p>
<p>But he maintained that he didn't think he'd missed the "a", and only realised he had when he heard the tape, so that weakens my theory somewhat!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graeme</title>
		<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237589</link>
		<dc:creator>Graeme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:20:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237589</guid>
		<description>Forget nerves, conspiracy or technology.    Isn't there a simpler psychological explanation:  who ever refers to themself as 'a man'?

He penned something cute:  poetically symmetrical and high-minded.

But the more natural (think of the setting - a ladder a few rungs short of a truly new world) enunciation would have been 'that's one small step for me, one giant leap for everybody'.

Anyone in such a bewildering but concrete/unique situation might baulk at the unnatural 'a man',</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Forget nerves, conspiracy or technology.    Isn't there a simpler psychological explanation:  who ever refers to themself as 'a man'?</p>
<p>He penned something cute:  poetically symmetrical and high-minded.</p>
<p>But the more natural (think of the setting - a ladder a few rungs short of a truly new world) enunciation would have been 'that's one small step for me, one giant leap for everybody'.</p>
<p>Anyone in such a bewildering but concrete/unique situation might baulk at the unnatural 'a man',</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Army1987</title>
		<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237573</link>
		<dc:creator>Army1987</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237573</guid>
		<description>@everybody:

It seems to me that the gender-neutral usage of &lt;i&gt;man&lt;/i&gt; was common until the late 1960s but it's very rare now. The default word for ‘any human’ nowadays is &lt;i&gt;person&lt;/i&gt; (except in contexts where you want to distinguish them from non-human self-aware beings, e.g. theology, fantasy/science fiction, etc.). (Whenever I have to translate a Latin quotation to English, I invariably use &lt;i&gt;person&lt;/i&gt; for &lt;i&gt;homo&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;man&lt;/i&gt; for &lt;i&gt;vir&lt;/i&gt;.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@everybody:</p>
<p>It seems to me that the gender-neutral usage of <i>man</i> was common until the late 1960s but it's very rare now. The default word for ‘any human’ nowadays is <i>person</i> (except in contexts where you want to distinguish them from non-human self-aware beings, e.g. theology, fantasy/science fiction, etc.). (Whenever I have to translate a Latin quotation to English, I invariably use <i>person</i> for <i>homo</i> and <i>man</i> for <i>vir</i>.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: maidhc</title>
		<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237558</link>
		<dc:creator>maidhc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237558</guid>
		<description>Hearing this news made me think of Roger McGuinn's song "Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jvm5Wm44uE

Hearing the phrase "gave the go" made me wonder how many words or idioms came into common usage as a result of the publicity given to the US space program. I thought of a few examples some years ago, but now I can't recall them.

I remember looking up at the moon then. Those were optimistic times.

I remember speculating about what he was going to say. My friends and I were hoping it would be "It &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; made of green cheese!".  But I have to admit the "one small step" line was much better.

Not many explorers have had their first words recorded. John Batman's  "this will be the place for a village" was one, but we don't know that that was the &lt;i&gt;first&lt;/i&gt; thing he said.  Most of them were too busy to work on memorable sayings, I suppose.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hearing this news made me think of Roger McGuinn's song "Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins"<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jvm5Wm44uE" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jvm5Wm44uE</a></p>
<p>Hearing the phrase "gave the go" made me wonder how many words or idioms came into common usage as a result of the publicity given to the US space program. I thought of a few examples some years ago, but now I can't recall them.</p>
<p>I remember looking up at the moon then. Those were optimistic times.</p>
<p>I remember speculating about what he was going to say. My friends and I were hoping it would be "It <i>is</i> made of green cheese!".  But I have to admit the "one small step" line was much better.</p>
<p>Not many explorers have had their first words recorded. John Batman's  "this will be the place for a village" was one, but we don't know that that was the <i>first</i> thing he said.  Most of them were too busy to work on memorable sayings, I suppose.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Army1987</title>
		<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237557</link>
		<dc:creator>Army1987</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:28:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237557</guid>
		<description>And yeah, I interpret it as myl says in Jonathon's comment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And yeah, I interpret it as myl says in Jonathon's comment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Army1987</title>
		<link>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237556</link>
		<dc:creator>Army1987</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:24:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4144#comment-237556</guid>
		<description>@Neil: The translation in Italian did put an indefinite article before the word for &lt;i&gt;man&lt;/i&gt;, and @Jeroen Mostert: Italian does use that word to mean ‘humanity’ (although when it does it's preceded by the definite article).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Neil: The translation in Italian did put an indefinite article before the word for <i>man</i>, and @Jeroen Mostert: Italian does use that word to mean ‘humanity’ (although when it does it's preceded by the definite article).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
