I mourn the death of "me" and "you"

[woozer]

Why is it that suddenly "yourself" and "myself" are being inappropriately substituted for "you" and "me" ?In this age where most words are being shortened for texting purposes this change is very strange and really annoying. Rant over, thank you for reading it.

[fredpuli47]

And I like 'as as' as in 'as as emphasis' as well ! ( Don't you , youself, miss the preview and edit function ? )

[hc4361]

The worst of all is "I, myself,..........".
Makes me want to scream.

[Quizmonster]

Fred, the OED splits its 'myself' material into several sections, including 'emphatic uses'. The Shakespeare quote I offered earlier was NOT from that section; it was from one dealing with the word as ellipsis for 'I myself'.
Although somewhat archaic now, over time, all three - I, myself and I myself - have all been perfectly acceptable as sentence-subjects in English usage. If I dare say it - given the response above this one! - I myself can see no reason why we shouldn't go on doing so, if that's what we want to do.

[Bert]

You have to smile when jake-t-p posts this: But I recognise that things move on - "whom" is seriously endangered and I would think it's use in a decade or two will be fossilised to stock phrases like "for whom the bell tolls".
Then this: I make a bit of a special case though for apostrophes. Their misuse significantly changes the meaning of a sentence.
I have to admit that his mistake does not change the meaning of the sentence - it's just wrong.
This is wrong, too (if anything can be said to be wrong in this ever-changing language of ours): It was enough to make a better man than myself go crazy. That should be: ..a better man than I go crazy. It is because that sounds wrong to a lot of people [who would say ... a better man than me go crazy] that they use 'myself'.
I, myself, mourn the loss of "there are" and "there were". Just listen to the number of people on TV and radio who say "there is" [or "there's"] or "there was" followed by a plural. Perhaps Spanish and French lost their plural forms years ago. They have only one form (singular) for "there is" and "there are" - 'hay' and "il y a".

[fredpuli47]

We're against the world, Bert ! And I still use 'shall' not 'will' to indicate that I have a settled intention[ I shall go to the game], or that something is seen as inevitable[{It shall bring ruin] or that I'm inviting that kind of response [Shall I close the window?] However, the world, and above all the American world, uses 'I will go' etc except, in the last case, where, anyway, the speaker commonly chooses not to use any such words, but prefers some other form of enquiry.They lose a useful nuance in using 'will' so often

[Quizmonster]

I think you've got that the wrong way around, Fred. 'Shall', when used with I or we indicated simple futurity, whilst 'will' with those words indicated strong intention. The reverse for you, he she, it and they. Hence the story of the English professor crossing a bridge who heard someone shouting, "I will drown and no one shall save me!" and walked on by. Why? Well, he did not consider it any of his business if someone was determined to commit suicide!

[swedeheart]

Thanks so much for that one QM - I've struggled a lifetime to understand the difference between shall and will and every time I thought I had it puzzled out someone would shatter it for me. Having read your explanation here I don't think it's any wonder I've been confused! I'll never remember what goes where - too old to learn such complicated new tricks - but I may just remember where to come looking for the information:)

[swedeheart]

Okay QM that was short and sweet but now I'm confused again... What about the song lyrics We Shall Not Be Moved...?

We shall not be moved.
On the road to freedom
We shall not be moved,
Just like a tree that's standing by the water side,
We shall not be moved.

[Quizmonster]

I'm sure, Swedeheart, that - in your English studies - you have noticed that there appears to be no such thing as a 'rule' IN the language! Also, I have no idea who wrote the song you refer to or what his/her 'English' background may have been. However, here's what Fowler's Modern English Usage has to say...

"I shall, we shall express the simple future...I will, we will express determination or insistence on the part of the speaker. For the second and third persons the rule is exactly the converse."

And here's what Gowers' Complete Plain Words has to say..."To express the plain future, shall is used in the first person and will in the second and third."

I just love the next bit from Gowers...

"The idiom of the Celts is different. They have never recognised ‘I shall go.' American procedure follows the Celtic and in this matter the English have taken to imitating the Americans. We can no longer say that ‘I will go' for the plain future is wrong. The Irish and Scots are having their revenge for our (ie the English's) bland assumption that English usage must be ‘right' and theirs ‘wrong'."

Wonderful! Nowadays, nobody - apart from Fred, perhaps! -bothers too much about the old distinction and the difference is often obscured by the abbreviated form ‘ll, as in "He'll see you now", in any case. In addition, the simple future is often indicated by the use of ‘going to'. ‘Shall' tends to cling on largely in formal and legal situations, as in "Shall we dance?" or "The tenant shall maintain the internal decoration in good condition."
I really hope that clarifies things for you...and a Happy Christmas to you and yours.

[swedeheart]

My "English studies" have consisted mainly of watching the telly and listening to music, QM:)

Regarding the song, The Seekers sang it - and they're Australian - (my head's spinning now;-) as did Joan Baez and Pete Seeger, as a "protest song", but originally it's a black spiritual: I Shall Not Be Moved. Johnny Cash, Lonnie Donegan, Elvis Presley, Mavis Staples and many many others have sung it as such. Everton fans sing it as... erm... not sure if it's a protest song or a spiritual in their version, he he! The Housemartins do a rendering too. Anyhoo, seems to be a case of Cherchez l'Américain, as it usually is when things get confused (for me, not for you) and in this case early black American language usage.

I have a feeling I'll be referring back to this thread ... too much for me to remember at my age but it's very clear, QM, and I thank you. A very Happy Christmas to you and yours as well. Now shall we dance? Or worship. Or watch football. Or something >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhw5qiwvM2A

[Quizmonster]

I enjoyed the Elvis song. Did you notice that, quite near the beginning, he once actually sang, "I WILL not be moved", despite using 'shall' about 180 times elsewhere in the piece? Was this a mistake or a sudden, subconscious realisation that 'will' was actually correct?

[swedeheart]

Ha ha, hadn't noticed! But it does sound like he's stressing a point there!

[ludwig]

QM - Interesting regarding the shall/will thing. I used to work with a scot who would say things like 'Will I make a coffee?', which sounds strange to an englishman, because it sounds as if he's asking you to predict the future. You feel like replying 'How should I know, you tell me mate'.
'Shall I make a coffee?' is what you'd normally expect to be asked.

[Quizmonster]

"England and America are two countries divided by a common language." (George Bernard Shaw)

"We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language." (Oscar Wilde)

As you suggest, Ludwig, what was once said of England and America might equally have been said of England and Scotland...rather closer neighbours!

[Bert]

I sympathise with Fred, but I "slipped into the vernacular" long ago when it comes to the shall/will debate. The "rule" seems to me to have been made up deliberately to be as confusing as possible. Surely, "Shall we dance?" means "Do we want to dance?" (really, "Do you want to dance with me?"), rather than being an enquiry as to the future. By the rule, it should therefore be "Will we dance?". There's an article on Wiki all about "We Shall Overcome" - it seems that the original title was "We Will Overcome". When speaking, a lot depends on the vehemence with which the verb is said - "You SHALL go to the ball, Cinders!"
Talking of ungrammatical songs, how about "Lay, Lady, Lay"? Doesn't that set your teeth on edge? Obviously not - if you are American, or under about 50, or from the South of England.

[Quizmonster]

'Shall we dance?' was, I imagine, always used in circumstances where 'No!' was scarcely an optional response. I can't imagine any ordinary man in a public dance-hall - we're talking 1950s here! - ever crossed the floor to the ladies' side, approached a strange woman and said, 'Shall we dance?' These words were much more likely to have been spoken at a society ball by someone who had actually accompanied the lady there as a partner in any case. That is, we have a rather formal situation here.

And, of course, if one is being insistent in certain circumstances, some element of vehemence in the voice would be natural as in, 'I WILL be a doctor one day!'