Originally Posted by
Claybird
Saying "for man" makes the word "mankind" redundant, right? Because in this particular example, the word "man", without being preceded by an article, implies man as a species, rather than merely defining movement relative to human anatomy, which would have been so, had the "a" been clearly heard over the radio (i.e. the step is small for
a man
, any man,
any human, to take).
Does this make any sense?? 'Prolly not!
Ah, it's all wicked cool, I'm going to have a tonic and relax

I agree it makes sense either way. But the script was "for a man" so the controversy ensued because it sounded like Neil flubbed his line. But a guy like that probably didn't...in the excitement of the moment he probably just reverted to his childhood brogue.