'I will drown and nobody shall save me!' cried the man who had fallen into the canal two hundred years ago.
I am wondering what he would be crying if he fell in the canal today.
English Language Learners Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for speakers of other languages learning English. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
There is no 'modern version'. The point of the joke is that I will used to be regarded as expressing resolution (it famously occurs in the Book of Common Prayer marriage service) and you shall as a command or a promise, so the man got his verbs wrong. In calling for help, he made it sound as though he wanted to drown!
We don't make these distinctions today, so the joke doesn't work. Compare this.
The man has got it wrong (which is the point: he would have been rescued if his grammar was correct). In the first person (according to the grammar books) "I shall" is used for future, unless expressing intention, promise, obligation or desire. But this is reversed in the second or third person. So "I will drown and no one shall save me." gives the intention to commit suicide. But if he has just fallen in, he should say
I shall drown, and no one will save me.
In modern English, "will" is used in all cases, and is normally reduced when used with pronouns. So a literal rephrasing would be.
I'll drown, and no one will save me.
Note that there is no error in using "I shall drown". It is still correct grammar.
The version I heard was that an English schoolmaster was the only one who heard the Scottish boy’s plea, said, “Very well then, have your way,” and walked off. The Oxford English Dictionary had another, where they acknowledged that people were now using enormous to mean big, rather than inordinate or abnormal, but they cheekily gave as their example a joke from the 1890s about a businessman who boasted of his “enormous profits” and had no idea how right he was!
If you mean a modern joke based on pedants pushing back against a word inverting its meaning, there’s this XKCD:
The webcomic 8-Bit Theater did a gag like this where the rules lawyer got out-lawyered about tautology (informally, vacuous circular reasoning, formally a statement that is necessarily true). Syllogism might have worked just as well.
You might make a nice one out of other contronyms such as sanction, cleave, or deceptively, but this works best when one meaning is pedantically correct but has become less common, such as inflammable, decimate, peruse or virtually.
The top answers do a good job on the historical distinction between "shall" and "will", so I won't restate everything. It boils down to "will" used to express intention when used in the first person, and "shall" indicated a command when used in the second or third person.
Therefore, a straightforward modern version would be:
I want to drown, and nobody should save me!
Of course, the sentence is no longer a joke. Most people would likely find this statement more alarming rather than amusing.