On the issue of correcting grammar, I tend to remain silent.  But the
example given pushed one of my hot buttons: "I had went"
 
The standard modern paradigm 'go, went, gone' represents a suppletion
from two separate verbs.  That is to say, forms from two distinct verbs,
gan and wendan, have been merged into a single verb form, in the standard
variety.
 
The form "I had went" is in no way an error.  It represents the
persistence of an old form in a (nonstandard) variety of English.  The
standard variety has lost this form, but other user varieties have kept it.
 
There is a larger issue here than what is presented in Joanna's
response.  Many forms in nonstandard varieties are defended in terms of
their logic, what they show about the logic of learner varieties,
how the form may be an instance of grammatical generalization.  The point
of my reponse on this occasion is to point out that these arguments are
irrelevant to cases such as the one cited.
 
The truth is that nonstandard varieties often retain linguistic features
that have ceased to exist in Standard English ('had went', 'hit' for
it, 'aks' for ask).  Or they continue a process of change that has been
slowed down by standardization--loss of present tense verb inflections in
AAVE, for example.
 
The real question is, who is going to control which variety will provide
access to social/economic/political power.
 
 
 
 
Virtually, Terry
(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)
Terry Lynn Irons        [log in to unmask]
Voice Mail:             (606) 783-5164
Snail Mail:             UPO 604 Morehead, KY 40351
(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)