I'm about to alienate all of Glasgow now but I tease my friend about this all the time. I don't know if this is common elsewhere in Scotland but, here, people say 'I done that' and 'I seen that' instead of 'I did that' or 'I saw that'. I've bloody started doing it too now!
I jest you not, this is grammatically acceptable. Seriously, because it is used consistantly, and in correct context, and is tense sensitive, it is considered to be colloquial grammar.
Still bugs me though, "I have saw that did", :shudder:
I do think many of the grammatical irritations are simply attempts at expression in a limited medium. I use the smilies, but even those are not always perceived in the same light by everyone.
The classic is the little
; I think it's a gentle poke in the ribs smirk, but BR thinks it snide
I know this so I make an effort not to use it in posts directed to him, but with other people I use if freely.
It's the same thing with words; where people try to create not only the speech, but the intonation and the emotions (for instance; you're my friend, I know you'll take this the way I mean, or I'm being very polite, or I'm unhappy and putting a brave face on things) that emulate normal conversation and the social cues that accompany that conversation.
Good writing, where one reads the intent clearly without confusion, is really very rare nowadays. Technical journals are a case in point
but the babble of academia, while it may be grammatically correct, can be nightmarish to interpret.
To, too and two are small change in the scheme of things, irritating though they might be in their ability to muddle the sense of the sentence. Frankly, I think the former is worse than the latter.
I recentlyt received the following:-
Please find below a final call for papers for a proposed TAG
2012 session, ‘Crafting-in-the-World: the temporal and spatial
dynamics of craft and its practitioners’.
Abstract:
Whilst the last two decades have witnessed a prolific interest
in craft studies, which have increasingly acknowledged the
sociality of craft, the role of choice, and the importance of
the body in the development and transmission of craft
traditions, there remains an uncomfortable dichotomy between
the temporal and spatial understandings of craft practice. The
abundance of existing research has traditionally focused on
either describing production processes or attempted to
theorise how the finished products of craft acquire meaning.
The separation of object from process has resulted in the
products of craft looming un-tethered to practice, devoid of
spatial and temporal understandings of craft practice.
Papers for the session could address the following themes:
• Reconciling continuity and change: redundancy,
innovation and change (every innovation involves loss and
gain); re-contextualisation of innovations; why some things
change and others don’t (i.e., there is no such thing as progress).
• Spatial articulation of craft: technological ‘features’
as architecture; space shaping practices and practices shaping
space; compartmentalization of space and time geographies.
• Tangled web of technological practice: communities of
practice; Complementing, referencing, incorporating aspects of
other crafts; mobile crafts (i.e., itinerant crafts people).
cheers,
M
PLAY NICE. 
