Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies catapults, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls trebuchets catapults. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "catapult family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of ranged siege weapons, which includes things from mangonels to orangers to the petrary.
So your reasoning for calling a trebuchet a catapult is because random people "call the flingy things ones catapults?" Let's get rubber bands and folded pieces of paper in there, then, too.
Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A trebuchet is a catapult and a member of the catapult family. But that's not what you said.
It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?