“It’s when water is touching a surface” blah blah I can easily disprove it by doing this or that. There is a surface of water in a bucket, does that become wet when I pour more water? Then you have to say “solid surfaces,” but furthermore am I “wet” if I enter a body of water fully submerged? No, I’m “under water” and saying I’m wet would be weird. Is the bottom of a bucket “wet” or does it contain water? How much water can something have on it for it to be “wet” or “submerged”? For most of history language has been arbitrary and man-made. All of these cases are caught by our arbitrary rules when we encounter them. By arguing water is wet or not without mentioning anthropic usage would make you wrong on the grounds of your argument.
If I put a tungsten cube under water I wouldn’t really call it wet. But if I sprayed it with water I would. But that changes when it’s a person, no? The type of surface it is depends as well, not all surfaces are equal - like something that is water phobic (aerogel) can make something not wet even though it (person + aerogel) is in contact with water. I’m not arguing water isn’t wet. I absolutely think it is by our language. But I am saying there isn’t a good way of arriving at that conclusion by going full Webster Dictionary.
I would call anything under water wet with the specific exception of stuff like aerogel that is hydrophobic, because it’s insulated by a layer of air. I think at enough pressure that would be overcome and the material would become wet.
“It’s when water is touching a surface” blah blah I can easily disprove it by doing this or that. There is a surface of water in a bucket, does that become wet when I pour more water? Then you have to say “solid surfaces,” but furthermore am I “wet” if I enter a body of water fully submerged? No, I’m “under water” and saying I’m wet would be weird. Is the bottom of a bucket “wet” or does it contain water? How much water can something have on it for it to be “wet” or “submerged”? For most of history language has been arbitrary and man-made. All of these cases are caught by our arbitrary rules when we encounter them. By arguing water is wet or not without mentioning anthropic usage would make you wrong on the grounds of your argument.
Saying you’re wet while underwater is the most natural thing, what?
I find it patently absurd to say water isn’t wet. Like obvious doublespeak levels of absurd. It’s the wettest thing possible.
The only thing wetter than water would be your mom I suppose.
If I put a tungsten cube under water I wouldn’t really call it wet. But if I sprayed it with water I would. But that changes when it’s a person, no? The type of surface it is depends as well, not all surfaces are equal - like something that is water phobic (aerogel) can make something not wet even though it (person + aerogel) is in contact with water. I’m not arguing water isn’t wet. I absolutely think it is by our language. But I am saying there isn’t a good way of arriving at that conclusion by going full Webster Dictionary.
I would call anything under water wet with the specific exception of stuff like aerogel that is hydrophobic, because it’s insulated by a layer of air. I think at enough pressure that would be overcome and the material would become wet.