Thomas Irvin.com

At first I thought it would be amusing to have a FAQ page that just had a lot of common questions listed, things like, "What time is it?" or "Are you going to finish that?" But then I got to thinking about all the questions that people ask me, and I thought to myself, "You know, there really are a lot of questions that I'm frequently asked that I'm a little tired of answering––although the questions are important to be sure, and deserving of careful answers."

And so I present to you this list of Frequently Asked Questions...

Q: I really want to show my patriotism by buying some clothing featuring the U.S. flag. What do you recommend?

A: I'm glad you asked. I recommend buying a good flag and displaying it at your home. Flying the flag is always in good taste, wearing it is not only in bad taste, it's expressly forbidden by the US Flag Code.

It would perhaps be a good idea to take a look at the company you would have if you wore the flag. The um...woman (I think) pictured at left could be the poster child for Ugly American Foundation. Notice also the terrific mullet she is sporting. Can there be any doubt that she represents the worst of America? You don't want to be like her.

And then there's the REAL obscene moment of the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show: Kid Rock wearing an actual flag with a hole cut in the center of it. This is just unthinkable, and the day's other "wardrobe malfunction" pales by comparison. The icing on the offensive cake was when he took it off and tossed it away to no one in particular. I'd like to hope this flag was put out of its misery by burning it soon afterward, but I doubt it.

While we're on the subject, I'd like to commend the Veterans of Foreign Wars for taking a stance on Kid Rock's flag desecration, when all the media outlets were focused on Janet Jackson's breast. Read the VFW's press release here.

This whole Super Bowl brouhaha has got me thinking about what is really offensive and what isn't. The media really got this one wrong: seeing a breast on TV is hardly offensive; a man ripping off a part of a woman's clothing to reveal her breast is. To clear things up once and for all, I present the ThomasIrvin.com Offensometer (click here to download a printable PDF version):

I mean, come on, people! This is an actual U.S. flag we're talking about. Essentially the same flag that inspired Francis Scott Key to write some of the most beautiful lyrics ever, the same flag that the 1936 Olympic team refused to dip to Hitler during the opening ceremonies of the Berlin games (when every other country in attendance did), the same flag that should only be draped over a person when that person is among our country's honored dead. And yet the media gets all up in arms about a woman's breast? Sheesh.

Speaking of anatomy and the flag, if you really want to be offensive, why not try some US Flag underwear? The best that can be said of anyone who would wear flag underwear is "You must really think highly of your ass if you think it deserves to be wrapped in Old Glory." The worst that can be said is, "Tommy Hilfiger, you are in violation of the US Flag Code." (And your clothes suck, anyway.)

Oh, and there's just one more thing.

Mr. President, please don't ever autograph a flag, ever again. No matter how small the flag, it's still a flag. You don't deface it in any way, even if you're the president.

Q: I'm testifying before a Congressional Subcommittee next week; what should I wear?

A: I'm glad you asked. A dark suit (navy or gray; never black unless somebody died) with a tie in a patriotic color is always a nice choice.

Take Frank Zappa for instance. Here's a fellow who is certainly outside the mainstream, and yet when he testified before a Senate subcommittee in 1985 about the PMRC, he put on a dark suit and a red tie. (I'm assuming that Mr. Zappa's suit isn't black although I'll admit it does look that way in this photo.)

Ah, but that was more than 15 years ago, when suits were more common, you say. Fine. Let's look at something more recent...

In April of 2002 Elmo from Sesame Street testified in favor of music education before the House Appropriations Labor Health & Human Services Subcommittee. Elmo, like Mr. Zappa, is also wearing a dark suit and red tie. (Apparently he knows red ties look smashing on people with reddish tones in their skin, or in this case, fur.)

And then there's poor Pearl Jam. Apparently Jeff Ament (the guy with the backwards baseball cap) and Stone Gossard (the guy with his shirt tail partially tucked in) didn't realize that it's not a good idea to look like idiots when they testified before the House Government Operations Subcommittee in July of '94 regarding the monopolistic actions of Ticketmaster. Not only did they fail to wear suits, but they also failed to look cool in a rock-and-roll sort of way.

You can't see it in the picture, but news reports from the time say that Gossard was wearing "velvet shorts." Perhaps he was trying (unsuccessfully) to emulate AC/DC's Angus Young––sounds like a case of ACGE (Actually Cool Guitarist Envy) to me.

Now, some might say that I'm implying that Pearl Jam are dumber than a Muppet. Nothing could be closer to the truth.

Whew––just looking at that picture of Pearl Jam gives me a headache usually reserved for listening to their music. Let's look at some pictures of Rosalind Russell from the 1940 classic "His Girl Friday" to cleanse the visual palate, if we can...

Ah... I'm feeling better already.

Q: I'm writing a movie script that takes place in the seventeenth century; what form of the second person pronoun should my characters use?

A: I'm glad you asked. Today we have very simple second person pronouns: subject and object forms, whether singular or plural, are always you. Possessive forms are your or yours. But in Early Modern English (roughly 1500-1750), some of the older pronoun forms such as thou and thee can still be found. The chart below shows the contemporary and archaic forms:

The crucial question, of course, is who used the archaic forms and under what circumstances were they used? Answering that is a somewhat more complicated. Two interesting (and contemporaneous) examples are the writings of Shakespeare and the Authorized (i.e. King James) version of the Bible.

Shakespeare, writing in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, used both forms, and as is so often the case, we can learn much from his exemplary word choice. For example, when Richard III was written (1593) the pronoun you was considered the more modern, prestigious choice, while thou was used condescendingly. Note the use of the second person in this exchange from Richard III, Act 1, Scene 2:

.....Gloucester Lady, you know no rules of charity,
.....Which renders good for bad, blessings for curses.
.....Lady Anne Villain, thou know'st no law of God nor man:
.....No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity.

Here Gloucester (the future King Richard III) is playing supplicant to Lady Anne; he employs the modern you. Lady Anne, however, returns a grammatically similar line with the archaic thou to demonstrate her disdain for him.

Contrast that with the Authorized Version of the Bible, first published in 1611, which maintains the archaic forms throughout. This is a theologically useful and more precise technique, as in Genesis 48:20, which in the Revised Standard version reads, "So he blessed them that day, saying, 'By you Israel will pronounce blessings [. . .]'" This sounds fine, but it is interesting to note that the original Hebrew has you in a singular form. When this is rendered by the Authorized Version, it reads, "And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless [. . .]" This use of thee is more specific, as it better reflects the original Hebrew text.

A slightly more modern example comes from J.R.R. Tolkien's Return of the King (1955), in which Tolkien (a professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford) has his character Denethor speak in the modern second person throughout the book, except in his final scene, when he switches to the archaic to demonstrate his disdain for the counsels of the character Gandalf:

...."Pride and despair!" he cried. "Didst thou think that the eyes
.....of the White Tower were blind? Nay, I have seen more than
.....thou knowest, Grey Fool. For thy hope is but ignorance."

Obviously, a clear line cannot be drawn at a single year to delineate the break between the archaic and modern forms of the second person pronoun, but with these three examples and the knowledge that the switch was already underway before the seventeenth century, you should be able to give your characters the rich diversity of dialogue they require.

Incidentally, those who lament the siege being made against the gender-specific third person pronouns he/she, him/her, et cetera (and I count myself among them) should note that there is a historical precedent; look how a word from the plural column (you) came to dominate the singular column in the second person. It may very well be that we are witnessing such a transition in the third person today.

Another feature of the modern second person is that it makes no distinction between nominative and accusative forms. I think we see a similar transition in the decline in usage of whom in favor of who, as well as the substitution of me where I is appropriate or vice-versa. Grammarians will lament, but I suspect in a hundred years or so we may see no differentiation between the nominative and accusative forms of our pronouns.

Q: I received one of those forwarded emails that purports to present a litany of amazing facts, one of which was that it is impossible to lick your own elbow. Is this true?

A: I'm glad you asked. This is not true. I consulted my friend Garth Johnson in Atlanta, and he replied within half an hour with conclusive proof:

(Click for a larger image)

This error calls into question the rest of the email as well, so the statement that "A duck's quack doesn't echo, and no one knows why" is highly suspect, as well as the allegations that Americans pay 50% of their income in taxes, most poor people don't want to work, and John Ashcroft has the best interests of the country at heart.