![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Cool
Posted by Will Collier · 1 October 2006
High-tech detective work apparently has found the missing "a" in one of the most famous phrases ever spoken. Here's the entire article. Full disclosure: Dr. Hansen was my history professor at Auburn, and is a prince of a guy. Comments
Minor point of difference. I heard it as "Persuasive is the ppropriate word." Posted by: bigmac at October 1, 2006 03:08 PMW cld sv lts f tm f w ll jst drppd mr vwls. Posted by: Robert at October 1, 2006 03:24 PMGlad ta her it.... finally but even more mysterious is the missing "Vodka" and "Tomorrow" from this website.... where ya been boys? Posted by: FloridaSteve at October 1, 2006 05:55 PMI liked the version quoted in The Onion better. Posted by: jon at October 1, 2006 09:09 PMWhat a baffling controversy. I watched the moon landing live, and clearly remember Neil Armstrong's first words. My thoughts were to cringe a bit for what seemed an obviously contrived statement. Of course, given its historical importance, Armstrong HAD to say something pithy and memorable. It is just that it necessarily sounded staged and somewhat ponderous, I wished it could have been a little more jaunty and original. But hey, he had to think of the folks back in Houston and many people before him who made it possible. He was an aviator, not a writer or lecturer. Never, never, in my hearing or recollection was the "a" missing in action. So where did this controversy come from? Posted by: Sparky at October 2, 2006 08:28 AMI've seen this posted in several blogs. To the point where I have to say "So what?" They found the missing "a". The guy was the first man to walk on the moon and people are obsessing about a missing letter. The missing "a" is about as interesting as a missing rivet on the lander. Posted by: ErikZ at October 2, 2006 05:49 PMI thought he said, "It's some kind of soft stuff. I can kick it around with my foot", but that oart was not transmitted to the TV viewers. That's my story. Posted by: Deacon Blues at October 3, 2006 10:12 AMThe new version may be grammatically correct, but the old version sounded better and used better imagery. Posted by: tim maguire at October 3, 2006 10:18 AMThe linguistics blog Language Log has several posts on Armstrong's a (or not) using spectrographic analysis, this being the kind of thing linguists do. And there's a link to the Shann Ford paper. I think you can color the linguists skeptical. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl (sorry that breaks badly, rejoin the pieces without spurious spaces) Posted by: Linda Seebach at October 3, 2006 06:59 PMdef not as a good a ring as the first way Posted by: rossi at October 7, 2006 06:03 AMHello, This is a great blog. I'm going to be sure to link yours to mine. Would you mind doing the same for me? Thank you very much. My site: Take care, |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"Son, don't be stupid on purpose."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |