Oh yeah. There’d either be carve-outs or congress would just knee-jerk against encryption (like they’ve nearly done before) and deal with the consequences later.
Care to explain the difference? Google is struggling to bring up adequate definitions for carve-out, or why it’s different to caveat, and I see multiple sources using both, sometimes interchangeably.
I mean, you’re the one claiming dumb Americans can’t pronounce English.
Caveat is a noun. It’s a really old word, literally from ancient Latin meaning “let him beware.” Basically a warning, often noting that while something may seem great, there is often a notable problem.
A carve out is a simple compound, and typically a verb, but can be used as a noun as seen above. It notes an exception (typically to a policy, practice, or law), often one specifically framed to benefit a specific group, at the expense of others.
For example: “Congress’ new law creates strong regulations for CO2 emissions, but before you get excited, there’s one caveat: there are carve outs for automotive manufacturers, who won’t have to abide by those regulations until 2030.”
A carve out is a simple compound, and typically a verb, but can be used as a noun as seen above. It notes an exception (typically to a policy, practice, or law)
caveat
/ˈkavɪat/
noun
a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations.
‘there are a number of caveats which concern the validity of the assessment results’
Emphasis mine.
I understand now the purpose of it. Normally in non-americanised English, using your example, caveat is used as follows:
“The deal has a caveat that x gets y” where caveat covers both meanings.
But that’s been Americanised because you’re separating those meanings effectively saying “There’s a caveat, the caveat is x gets y” as, “There’s a caveat, the carve out is x gets y”.
So, it isn’t that your TV personalities couldn’t speak, it’s because your contract writers were semi-literate.
Oh yeah. There’d either be carve-outs or congress would just knee-jerk against encryption (like they’ve nearly done before) and deal with the consequences later.
Why do Americans say carve-out, is it because illiterate TV media personalities couldn’t pronounce caveat?
Because they mean different things.
Care to explain the difference? Google is struggling to bring up adequate definitions for carve-out, or why it’s different to caveat, and I see multiple sources using both, sometimes interchangeably.
I mean, you’re the one claiming dumb Americans can’t pronounce English.
Caveat is a noun. It’s a really old word, literally from ancient Latin meaning “let him beware.” Basically a warning, often noting that while something may seem great, there is often a notable problem.
A carve out is a simple compound, and typically a verb, but can be used as a noun as seen above. It notes an exception (typically to a policy, practice, or law), often one specifically framed to benefit a specific group, at the expense of others.
For example: “Congress’ new law creates strong regulations for CO2 emissions, but before you get excited, there’s one caveat: there are carve outs for automotive manufacturers, who won’t have to abide by those regulations until 2030.”
caveat /ˈkavɪat/ noun
a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations. ‘there are a number of caveats which concern the validity of the assessment results’
Emphasis mine.
I understand now the purpose of it. Normally in non-americanised English, using your example, caveat is used as follows:
“The deal has a caveat that x gets y” where caveat covers both meanings.
But that’s been Americanised because you’re separating those meanings effectively saying “There’s a caveat, the caveat is x gets y” as, “There’s a caveat, the carve out is x gets y”.
So, it isn’t that your TV personalities couldn’t speak, it’s because your contract writers were semi-literate.
What were you saying about my English competency?