Mine too. Usage may will vary, but for me “grizzling” is the kind of grumbly whimpering that suggests an infant is just a bit bored, tired or frustrated rather than in pain or serious discomfort. Distractions may help.
I think it’s probably because the terminology for ground/first floor has been around since a time when (in the old world), most dwellings didn’t have any kind of ‘upstairs’ to them, and the surface you stood on when you went inside was literally the ground. Maybe covered with flagstones if the owner could afford them, if not, it was just beaten earth, maybe sealed with clay plus oil or dried milk. The floor was the ground. The ground floor.
If, later, you extended your house upwards by building a timber floor and walls and a roof, on top of the stone walls of the ground-floor dwelling, you had built your first floor above ground level; if you were wealthy enough to add two stories on top of your house, you build the top one second.
This makes me wonder about a hypothetical culture that consistently defines the top floor as the first floor, so the number associated with the ground level tells you how many floors are above you. I don’t think such a culture exists but it might be a fun fictional construct.
Maybe a fantasy race of winged people? Or maybe in a city of skyscrapers so tall that their bottom floors are hidden in mist, and people travel by aircraft and land on rooftops.
I recall a hotel I stayed in, in Athens, Greece. The ground floor was the ground floor. The next floor up was the hotel offices. The next floor up was the hotel restaurant. The next floor up was the first floor. My room was on the second floor, so another floor up. To me, I was on the fifth floor; to the Greeks, I was on the second floor.
Never mind. My room was clean and comfortable. No big deal.
Maybe a culture where, in the early days, it was easier to dig basements and sub-basememts than to build additional layers upwards
The whole first floor thing reminds me a lot of technical debates about array indexing. Also fencepost errors.
That’s an interesting idea, but the problem is that I’ve actually been in such a place.
This specifically:
It’s an entirely underground settlement, dug out of the soft rock, dozens and dozens of rooms and corridors and air passages and on and on. (And it’s not the only one in the area, either.) It was initially constructed something like 2800-3000 years ago, though of course without written records it’s very difficult to say for certain how big it was at first or how its expansion proceeded.
The point is, it’s not at all organized into levels or layers. It’s a maze of chambers, tunnels, sloping connections, all haphazardly piled on and around one another.
Here’s a partial map of Derinkuyu, another similar settlement in the area, giving a taste of the layout. The real location is much bigger than this:
And here’s an interior picture to give you a sense of how it feels trying to find your way around:
As confusing and frustrating as it is to navigate a chaotic layout like this, it does make sense historically — such ancient people wouldn’t have the benefit of surveying equipment or other modern technologies, especially underground; they just dug wherever and however they could. If they accidentally broke through from one space into another, well, that was just another door. You can see in the picture how the floor level in the areas farther from the camera is halfway up the wall compared to the floor in the foreground.
Absolutely fascinating place, well worth the visit. But it does provide counter evidence to the notion that a prehistoric culture would be able to construct anything underground with coherently organized layers such that they’d lend themselves to a level-numbering scheme.
… Weren’t we talking about British vocabulary? 
In North America the word “Street” or “Avenue” can (sometimes?) be omitted when referring to an address or a location. Not so in Britain. One would think this difference so minor as to be barely worthy of mention and unlikely to give rise to any bafflement. And yet, I seem to remember a story, possibly on this message board, of some US visitors in London buying tickets to Oxford instead of Oxford Street, or possibly Liverpool instead of Liverpool Street.
Another difference, even less likely to cause actual confusion, but enough to sound odd to native speakers, is a tendency of (some?) Americans to say “the Glasgow airport” or “the Dublin Airport” instead of “Glasgow Airport” and “Dublin Airport”.
To sort of underline that point, some streets in old towns here in England only have one name, such as Reforne on the isle of Portland and Bimport in Shaftesbury - not Reforne Street or Bimport Road - just Reforne and Bimport - and I find these things a bit jarring when I encounter them.
See also ‘in the hospital’, not ‘in hospital’.
You’re correct about “sometimes” in North America, because you certainly can’t always leave out “street” or “avenue” where I live - but I don’t think that has anything to do with people buying tickets to Oxford instead of Oxford Street. I think that has to do with them not either knowing there is a place called Oxford or not realizing it’s possible to buy a ticket to Oxford St - people here may leave out the “avenue” and just say “Alabama” or whatever depending on the context but they wouldn’t do it in a context where the state and the avenue could be confused.
What I have heard of happening is someone mixing up a European city and one of the same name in North America by using just the city name - buying a ticket to Rome, New York rather than Rome , Italy or vice versa.
Or these famous examples:
It would never occur to me to omit the Street or Avenue on an address as an American. When I was growing up we lived in a town that had a Fourth Avenue and Fourth Street (where we lived).
Since then I’ve lived in similar situations and always include the Street or Avenue. If it’s even the least bit vague I will look it up to confirm.
I’ve read stories about tourists with Australia as their destination who landed in Austria. Sorry, no cite, this was years or even decades ago.
I have traveled to the UK a number of times and I am familiar with the word nappies.
There is a food service truck in my local area (Pennsylvania) that I occasionally see that makes me howl with laughter every time.
The name? Nappies Food Service.
Whilst we’re on the subject of babies (etc) am I correct in thinking that what I would know as a Dummy is termed a Pacifier in the US?
j
The real issue with the Oxford Street confusion isn’t that saying ‘Oxford’ in London might mean the city in Oxfordshire; it’s that there are multiple other streets in London named after Oxford, including Oxford Court, Oxford Gardens, Oxford Square and quite a few Oxford Roads. A significant proportion of street names in London are like that. So you need to be specific.
Formally, yes, a pacifier. Less formally, a binky.
Is it that you never leave off street/court/road etc , even if it is a unique street name or is it just that there are a lot of non-unique street names?