HelenB: Well, perhaps it's an Americanism. When one comes home from shopping and discovers that there's, say, a rodent living inside the watermelon, one says (angrily), "I'm bringing this back!" I feel that there's a subtle difference between the actions of returning the watermelon to its former resting place and, say, TAKING it to the Board of Health, where it presumably has never been. Webster's does define "bring" as: to convey, lead, carry, or cause to come along with one toward the place from which the action is being regarded. Now I have a little difficulty with this. How can something accompany you to a place if you're already there? In educated company (here, I mean- if you can imagine such a thing) I daresay that no one would express horror equal to yours, whereas "had went" would raise eyebrows. Mrs. A and I aren't careless in our speech, but then we haven't had the advantage of your tutelage.
There are indeed inconsistencies in American speech, as there no doubt are in English. We, for example, would NEVER say "in hospital" (there's always an article there), though we do say "in church", unless, say, one is outside a place of worship, in the parking lot, for example (car park?), and one says, "Where is little Ludwig?" (a common Yankee name). One might then say, "Little Ludwig is in the church, playing with his flashlight" (torch). One might then say, "Bring him out here!", even though little Ludwig would not be accompanying the speaker toward whom he is moving, but being taken to him/her. Couldn't one say that the fetcher was bringing him out?
It's perhaps fortunate that our trip to London was cancelled last year (due to the volcanic eruption). People there wouldn't have understood us! And they might have laughed at our beaver hats.