One small step for Neil Armstrong: the wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine
It’s been a long time coming, but vindication is finally here for astronaut Neil Armstrong.
That’s actually–ahem–Neil A. Armstrong. Don’t forget that A, like Armstrong did! Except it turns out he didn’t forget it, he just spoke it too quickly for the human ear and brain to record.
But not too quickly for the machine, apparently. Now technology has finally caught up with his fleeting but all-important article, the word “a,” thanks to Peter Shann Ford, an Australian computer programmer whose software analysis of Armstrong’s “That’s one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind” has found the missing word Armstrong had always insisted was there (hat tip: Austin Bay).
Somehow the news is very satisfying to me, although it hardly qualifies as earth- (or moon-) shattering. But that misquote had always grated. It made no sense even when I first heard it, which was when it was originally transmitted and televised in July of 1969. The black-and-white images were grainy and blurred, something like the primitive ultrasound by which I first was able to view the outlines of my son’s tiny form in utero many long years later (or actually, not so very many, come to think of it).
But it still seemed wondrous–men on the moon! Walking and talking! And when Armstrong said what sounded to me and to everyone else like, “One small step for man, one giant step for mankind,” the reaction was “Waah? What’d he say?”
It made no sense, and the grammarians among us have been ever-so-vaguely annoyed by that ever since. But not nearly so much as Armstrong himself. I’m glad he’s still alive to see the record set straight.
[NOTE: Some comments to this post focused on the idea that Armstrong had been perceived as making a grammatical error. My response is that it wasn’t about grammar, actually. Both sentences are perfectly grammatical, as far as I can see.
For me and most others, it was about meaning. The sentence was meant to go from the tiny to the large, in a sort of poetry. To me, it should have conveyed: “I’m only one man taking a step at this moment, but I represent the hopes and dreams and efforts of all humankind.” When Armstrong said “man” instead of “a man,” I felt that contrast between the small individual and the aggregate group was lost.]
And good night, Mrs. Calabash…wherever you are.
I like the altered version, because it would use man as in plural, insynch with mankind. Man to represent mankind, instead of one man.
Sort of like the transition from man, the lonely guy in nowhere, to mankind, the group continuity.
We had no business being there in the first place. We were told there would be green cheese. There was NO green cheese. It was only an excuse for the criminal Nixon to colonize yet another pristine world and plant the flag of oppressive AmeriKKKa before the Soviet Union could.
This is yet another example of failed US adventurism and 4 year quagmire that was unwanted by the indigenous life form.
Yes, thats right. Im referring to the Moonbats.
Doesn’t anyone think “a man” sounds awkward?
I prefer “one small step for man.”
The grammarians are wrong on this one.
What next? Are they going to correct “it’s the real thing?”
I find the former, mistaken sentence to be somewhat endearing. Who can remember a rehearsed line when you just step onto the moon?
I prefer the ‘original” version myself. Armstrong was the only one taking that step. But there were tens of thousands working to develop the technology to make it possible. And millions paying the taxes which financed the mission.
I was sitting in a barber’s chair in Vietnam when I first heard those words. Isn’t it funny how such events bookmark our lives?
OK, I went and looked into this because it was pissing me off. And there is absolutely nothing erroneous or wrong about the original quotation as I explain in detail over at my blog. This is a tyopical case of “grammarians” not seeing the forest for the trees, Next thing you know, they’ll be telling us that’s wrong too.
I like The Onion’s version best.
Neo, I worked at KSC at the time and I was irked at what I thought I heard. The quote was scripted of course, but it was secret. I remember the announcer, very quietly, almost a whisper (like it was a putt for the Masters)say “here’s his quote…”. Then a little confusion on his face, before he repeated what Armstrong seemed to have said. I don’t remember what TV channel I was watching. I do remember the contrast between the live broadcasts and the edited (for time) rebroadcasts. Do you?
Heh. It doesn’t really matter whether it was an error in grammar, an error in Mr. Armstrong’s diction, or even a technical error that caused a skip in the transmission.
The moment came, the world was watching, and the line was blown.
Me, I actually like the fact that the line got screwed up. It makes the whole thing seem more an act of ordinary, falliable human beings, rather than perfect, manicured gods that only exist in Hollywood movies.
It was never a big deal to me whether it was grammatically wrong or not, as a pretty verbal 6th grader it made just as much sense to me colloquially.
As far as a rehearsed or even scripted line goes, I’d sure as hell hope *someone* would think long and hard beforehand, for something to say when about to go do the impossible and unheard-of – instead of casually and extemporaneously ad-libbing something trite.
The syntax isn’t wrong, but it just wasn’t what Armstrong was trying to say. One small step for a man, just means differently than one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
The reason I like the altered one, the one that Armstrong didn’t mean, is that if Armstrong was just talking about “one man”, he would be talking about himself. But if he said one small step for man, you can feel yourself part of this endeavour, perhaps walking in his shoes as well because you are part of mankind.
The altered phrasing, thus creates a more lasting appeal, because it appeals to all of mankind, not just to “one man” who walked on the moon.
It’s a literary technique called “juxtaposition,” Ymar. The impact of the second clause, “one giant leap for mankind,” was to have been increased by preceding it by the clause focusing on the simple, everyday action Armstrong was taking, “one small step for a man.” If Armstrong had started with the line, “one small step for the men and women of the NASA Apollo program,” there would have been significantly less power in the juxtaposition.
The line was carefully planned out beforehand, polished into what would have been a truly elegant statement to insipre a nation.
And it got blown. How it got blown really doesn’t matter, it still got blown.
Neo, it seems this is all a bit too much “nuance” for most of your readers.
When that was first broadcast the sound crackled. No wonder his full quote was missed. Good news, then, for NAA!
the literary juxtaposition is better without the a.
I suppose it’s a matter of opinion, if you think it’s better to make 150 million Americans say “huh?” instead of “HELL YEAH!” Just don’t be surprised if hardly anyone shares it.