4 ms·
None of those have an engine, which both the first and third definitions would say is typical. That's why the only vehicle that made me pause was the tank, sin
by ThunderSizzle 3y ago
None of those have an engine, which both the first and third definitions would say is typical.
That's why the only vehicle that made me pause was the tank, since it was at one point motorized, but no longer.
- jakelazaroff 3y agoTypical, sure, but not required!
- generalizations 3y agoThis is why legal documents often have important definitions listed. In the last case, the answer hinges on the definition of “machine”. Pick a definition of that, and I’ll tell you if a boat is a vehicle.
- jakelazaroff 3y agoLet's stick with the Cambridge dictionary: > a piece of equipment with several moving parts that uses power to do a particular type of work How many oars is "several"? Do they count if they're not physically affixed to the boat?
- generalizations 3y agoContinuing to stick with the Cambridge Dictionary. > ((a piece of (the set of necessary tools, clothing, etc. for a particular purpose) with (some; an amount that is not exact but is fewer than many) moving parts that uses power to do a particular type of work) used for transporting people or goods) Yup, that's technically a rowboat - as long as it has oars included (whether or not they're physically attached: "set of"). Take the oars out of the equation, and it's not a machine anymore...just a piece of a vehicle (like how a tire isn't a car).
- jakelazaroff 3y agoThis definition excludes cars, right? “Many” is pretty vague, but I think we can agree it describes the number of moving parts in a car.
- marssaxman 3y agoI interpreted the tank as a form of sculpture, not a vehicle.