Goofy has nailed it: it's a style issue rather than a grammatical issue. Burchfield, writing in "The New Fowler's" quoted from a booklet he himself had written: "This booklet results from ... ( a study) undertaken by Professor Denis Donaghue, Mr Anthony Timothy and myself at the invitation of ..."

Some people might not like this usage, but that doesn't make it wrong. I dislike the way "awesome" is used nowadays, but I can't say it's wrong.

@porsche. If not Shakespeare, how about modern writers like Flann O'Brien, Arthur M. Schlesinger, and even E.B. White, who have all used "myself" in this way, according to the ever excellent MWDEU:

http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA647

My final comment: I'm interested in the real world of how modern standard English works. To me, that is fascinating enough without getting into the realm of if's and but's. The 'game' - Although your English is excellent, I don't think you're a native speaker. That in no way means you haven't just as much right to comment as anyone else. But I do think it means you see English from a different perspective from me.

@Sigurd - Not only is an official change unlikely in the near future, it is impossible; there is no official authority to make that decision, thank God. And even if there was one, do you think they'd really make a change which would go so fundamentally against the nature of the language?

I think you give the game away when you talk of anglophones. I understand that Finnish, to take an example purely at random, is a fiendishly difficult language to learn. But there is no reason why I should expect Finns to change their language for my benefit.

I've never heard of any native speaker having problems with this. Nor have I come across any problems with it amongst my EFL students.

@Sigurd - OK, I'm sorry for the last part; I was thinking of the business with ‘Loxley’s Robin’, A Loxley’s townsman and an Arc’s townswoman'. I'm afraid I still don't find these natural English, and we already have perfectly good expressions to describe these people. :)

Back to the use of 'you' - Have you really ever had any serious problems of understanding because we have a joint singular and plural form? I can't remember having done so. Don't you think that if there had been a real problem, the language would have adapted somehow.

My objection is that this singular/plural 'you' is quite an important element of our language, for reasons already put forward by bubbha and AnWulf. Languages that have separate singular and plural forms often end up with the latter being used as a formal singular form, and the former being used to speak to imagined 'inferiors'. When, for example, a French policeman calls you 'tu' instead of 'vous', you know you're in trouble.

In English we don't have that problem, and this suits me just fine.

@Sigurd - 'impoverished'? Ask a young French person how they should address an elder cousin, for example: tu or vous? - It's not even always clear to them. I think they'd be quite glad to have our lack of a choice.

Developments in language take place for a reason, and this distinction obviously wasn't necessary. AnWulf has given very good reasons for this. As for ambiguity, sorry, but nonsense. When we use 'you' we are addressing someone or more than one directly. Both sides know who is being referred to. And if we don't, we can simply ask.

I'm sorry to say this, but I really wonder sometimes why you find the natural English we speak and love so unsatisfactory that you're forever wanting to change it.

@Douglas.Bryant - I'll leave the 'real' stuff to you Americans. As a speaker of standard BrE, I'm not really qualified to comment, as I think this is mainly an American usage. In standard BrE it's quite clear:
real = adjective
really = adverb
However my dictionary lists 'real' as an adverb in informal use, not only for AmE, but also for Scottish English.

But I'm not sure about your comments about 'really' not being used as much as an intensifier as it is to mean 'actually'. This Ngram graph would suggest that 'is really angry' (=very) is much more common than 'really is angry' (=actually).

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=is+really+angry%2Creally+is+angry&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3

'Really' as an intensifier has two advantages over 'very':
1. It can be used with both gradable and ungradable adjectives, whereas 'very' can only be used with gradable. (This is especially useful for learners)
2. It's emotionally stronger than 'very'. It sounds as though you really mean it; it's more from the heart. Compare:
- It was a very good concert; I had a very good time. I'm very glad I went.
- It was a really good concert; I had a really good time. I'm really glad I went.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage: "The part of speech of 'exact' in 'exact same' is of secondary importance'. - (Incidentally they think it's better regarded as an adjective being used with another adjective for emphasis) - The primary question is whether the phrase is used by educated speakers and writers, and that the answer to that is yes."
And then they go on to give examples.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA419

But porsche, I'm surprised at you - "The sweater is dark blue" - do you really think that blue is a noun? (what happens when you take away 'dark') -You haven't actually changed anything, just made the adjectives(s) predicative instead of attributive.

@HairyScot - I totally agree with you that 'I've got' has exactly the same meaning as 'I have' (and that's where you'll find it in the dictionary) and that porsche has got it wrong here.

But 'I've got' is mainly used in informal spoken English, where we don't usually worry about redundancy. In fact many linguists say that redundancy actually helps comprehension in spoken language . And I still argue that 'I've got a new car' is easier to say then 'I have a new car' - it involves less mouth movement. In spoken English 'have got' is simply more natural (as MWDEU says - link below).

You could use exactly the same argument about 'Ive got to', and 'I have to' - but I imagine there is an equally good reason why we often say 'I've got to'.

What is more important? Worrying about a little harmless redundancy, or using good old idiomatic English? It was good enough for Jane Austen, Lord Byron and Lewis Carroll after all.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA498

A couple of interesting things in Chris's comment. I had mentioned the three causative verbs which were the exception to the 'to' infinitive norm: 'let', 'make' and 'have'. I'd forgotten about 'help', the verb that likes to swing both ways. We can equally say:
"This helps him perform better" or "This helps him to perform better"

In his second example, "I saw her get on the bus", there is a similar pattern, but with a verb of perception rather than a causative verb. Swan (Practical English Usage) calls this second verb phrase the object complement (complementing "her"), and it could equally well be a present participle, "I saw her getting on the bus", albeit with a possible subtle difference in meaning.

Your initial instinct is right. We have lots of so-called causative verbs which take an object plus second verb in the infinitive, eg - tell somebody to do something - that second verb never changes - but three verbs lose the 'to', and take 'bare' infinitives - make, let and have - let her do it, make him do it, have somebody do it (US). With causatve verbs, the object is normally a person; you have found one with a non-human object. But the principle is the same. Try googling 'causative verbs'; you might even get my blog post.