Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: − + + +
→One Small Step: typical of journalists
[[Image:NASA Moon Flag.jpg|left|thumb|250px|Neil Armstrong, First Man on the Moon - Apollo 11, July 20, 1969]]
[[Image:NASA Moon Flag.jpg|left|thumb|250px|Neil Armstrong, First Man on the Moon - Apollo 11, July 20, 1969]]
==One Small Step==
==One Small Step for a man==
When Armstrong stepped onto the moon surface, he said the well-known words ''"That's one small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind."'' that are even today associated to the moon landing. Due to a transmission glitch, the article "a" was not audible and Armstrong was widely misquoted as saying "one small step for man" (i.e, for mankind) - turning his epigram into a nonsense.
When Armstrong stepped onto the moon surface, he said the well-known words ''"That's one small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind."'' that are even today associated to the moon landing. Due to a transmission glitch, the article "a" was not audible and Armstrong was widely misquoted as saying "one small step for man" (i.e, for mankind) - turning his epigram into a nonsense.
The astronaut was clearly contrasting his own tiny personal action ("a man" stepping off a ladder) with the momentous significance that landing on the moon had for all of mankind, yet journalists generally ignored the discrepancy and repeatedly published the misquote.
These words are an interesting example of the problems historians faced in finding out what really happened in history. His words were broadcast and millions of people heard them. Yet, for a long time, there was disagreement about ''what'' he had said.<ref>The dispute is significant because it changes the meaning of the sentence. If he meant "man", it's redundant because man and mankind are the same. If he meant "a man", he was comparing and contrasting his personal accomplishment with the implications for all of humanity.
These words are an interesting example of the problems historians faced in finding out what really happened in history. His words were broadcast and millions of people heard them. Yet, for a long time, there was disagreement about ''what'' he had said.<ref>The dispute is significant because it changes the meaning of the sentence. If he meant "man", it's redundant because man and mankind are the same. If he meant "a man", he was comparing and contrasting his personal accomplishment with the implications for all of humanity.