Handle9:

 

linw:

 

The American commentator on NewstalkZB in the after 4 session is particularly bad.

 

 

 

 

FTFY

 

Did I FTFY?

Fred99:

 

 

 

linw:

 

The American commentator on NewstalkZB in the after 4 session is particularly bad.

 

 

Did I FTFY?

 

Yes. Odd, the strikethrough was in the editor but then it didn't publish. I suppose that annoys me.

And it just did it again.

linw:

 

The constant use of "right now", when "now" would be fine, irks me. Especially common with Americans but now picked up by many radio hosts and hostesses.

 

The American commentator on NewstalkZB in the after 4 session is particularly bad.

 

Is this annoying because of their Americanness or just because of that particular usage?

I've noticed it too.  It's annoying in the same way that that some demographics overuse the word 'like'.

Gurezaemon:

 

Is this annoying because of their Americanness or just because of that particular usage?

 

It is annoying because Americans inflate everything to the point of uselessness. 

Rikkitic:

 

Gurezaemon:

 

Is this annoying because of their Americanness or just because of that particular usage?

 

 

It is annoying because Americans inflate everything to the point of uselessness. 

 

So hyperbolic, kind of like your comment here? 😆

Yep. Pretty much. Except my statement isn't hyperbolic. If anything, it is understated.

MadEngineer: Why do Australians like to put ‘but’ at the end of sentences but?

Maybe they are covering their backsides.

Rikkitic:

 

MadEngineer: Why do Australians like to put ‘but’ at the end of sentences but?

 

Maybe they are covering their backsides.

 

But if they put it at the end they’re leaving their but exposed, surely.

Surely they've put a period to exposing their but ?

OK - English grammar certainly has no obligation to be consistent...

But I've always puzzled over the inconsistent need for _to_ in human-to-human communication.

We telephone, phone, call or ring someone, or cable, fax, text, email, or WhatsAp them;
but we write _to_ them (unless you're from the US, when you'll likely just write them).

We bow, curtsy, kneel, wave or nod _to_ someone, but we just salute them.

We may signal _to_ them - or signal them - with no fine difference in meaning (that I know of).

If deaf, again we can do either: sign _to_ or just sign someone.

Then, quite consistently, we smile, frown, grin, giggle, laugh, guffaw, wink, grimace, sniff, snarl or sneer _at_ them.
I can't think of a facial mode of communication that escapes that preposition.

We even 'wiggle our ears' or 'raise our eyebrows' or 'shake our heads' _at_.

We might whistle _at_ someone.

When angry (and focusing our output), we always yell, or shout _at_ the target(s).
When upset, we cry or sob _to_ (very occasionally _at_) someone.
While if calmer, we talk, murmur, mutter, croon, sing or whisper _to_ them.
But we berate them and possible damn them without need of either _at_ or _to_.
We seem happy to use 'curse' directly or via an _at_...

I can only be glad that I learned English by absorption ;-)

^ i think it's pretty obvious.

_To_ is more polite.  You're literally giving something directly to them

_At_ is more casual and in their general direction