Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!JAFFE
From: JAFFE@RUTGERS.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: "Where no man has gone before"
Message-ID: <2521@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 16:29:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.2521
Posted: Mon Jul  8 16:29:57 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 07:22:11 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 32

From: duke!crm (Charlie Martin)

In article <2422@topaz.ARPA> milne@uci-icse writes:
>From: Alastair Milne 
>
>
>   I usually take that frontispiece "... boldly go where no man has gone
	...
>   However, most of the time she had duties to fulfill as one of the 12 or 13
>   most powerful ships of the Federation's fleet.  She could hardly do that
>   while spending 5 years out of contact with anybody at all.  Furthermore,
>   how likely is it that anybody would send so expensive a ship and crew out
>   simply to be a remote survey vessel?  Or that StarFleet would entrust *all*
>   diplomatic dealings with newly-contacted races to a crew whose primary
>   orientation was military?  

England did just that through much of the wet-navy-in-sailing-ships
period, just like it suggests in the Hornblower books.

>
>   (Do you realise how many people must now think that "... to boldly go..."
>   is acceptable English grammar?)
>

If the British would'a thrown that norman fellow off the island in 1066,
it *would* be acceptable grammar -- that whole "don't split infinitives"
business is an execreble Latinism.  (Please note that there is a joke
encoded in the last sentance.)
-- 

			Charlie Martin
			(...mcnc!duke!crm)