Fun fact: there is no such thing as a universally accepted definition. Words mean what we mean when we say them. And the vast majority of people use “wet” to describe something that is made up of, touching, or covered in a liquid, especially water. The arbitrary assertion that the definition somehow only applies to solids is just facile contrarianism with no actual basis in linguistics.
“Wet” Is used as an adjective describing something that consists of or is touching some liquid. Nobody seems to have a problem with the concept of wet paint. I can’t imagine anyone other than Sheldon Cooper saying “technically the wall is wet, the paint is liquid!” If you would say that, I have a locker to shove you in
Sure. I wouldn’t usually refer to lava as wet, but I also don’t interact with it very often. Glass is an amorphous solid, so not liquid and so not wet unless it’s touching something liquid or is liquid itself. Liquid mercury exists outside of thermometers as well, and it’s wet both in one and out of one. Space isn’t a thing, and so it you can’t be in contact with anything, and so concepts like wetness and dryness don’t really apply.
I also wouldn’t call any of those wet in my daily life, largely because I don’t interact with them very often. I don’t get into hyper pedantic arguments about the ways we define words very often in real life either. Most people simply agree that water is wet
It’s not “less than meaningful” if you understand wet as a relative term. There can be a normal level of wetness where if it is exceeded we then call that thing wet, and if it’s under that threshold we call it dry relative to the norm.
If you somehow came from a perfectly dry environment, yeah, you would probably consider our world pretty wet. You would have a pretty hard time describing your experience to others if you couldn’t use the word wet to do so. The word doesn’t lose meaning just because you go all reductio ad adsurdum with it.
Another note (which you mentioning air made me think of), if water “has no surface” then how does it have “surface tension?” Another point for “water touches water.”
Mixing elements would entail the elements dissolving or at least distributing within the mix, making boundaries between them unclear. The mix can however have a clear edge.
Does milk wet cocoa, or do they mix? The hot chocolate of course has a surface, but if you add rum to it does it really adhere to it?
It dissolves when wet, sure, but on a molecular level is the cocoa bonding with the water to become some state other than “wet” or “dry,” or is the dissolved cocoa still “wet?”
Matter of fact, we have words to describe the quantity of “wetness.” There’s many synonyms of course, soaked, dessicated, etc, but the base levels are: dry, damp, and wet. If “water is not wet,” then what is it? Do you propose water to be “dry?”
That’s the actual definition. That’s why bad solder joints are called dry joints and melting the solder across a soldering iron tip is called wetting the tip.
But that’s not the definition of wet. Wet is something having liquid adhere to it, usually water. It’s a gained quality. Water doesn’t adhere to itself, it can’t gain the quality of being wet because it is the thing that gives that quality. It’s like saying that fire is burnt. It does the burning.
Actually fire is the byproduct of a chemical reaction. The material being combusted is the one doing the burning. Fire (rather, extreme heat) can cause combustion in other materials, given an oxygen rich environment, but the fire is not itself doing the combustion or burning.
Wetness is not a chemical reaction, so it’s kind of an apples to oranges comparison.
Since heat is thermal energy, it can transfer this thermal energy but it loses some due to the second law of thermodynamics. Water doesn’t lose the ability to adhere to other things when it transfers, so the two phenomenon are not really equateable.
Fair enough, heat can’t lose heat. However when it interacts with a substance some of the energy is “lost” in that it transfers to the substance. Unless it is a completely inert material.
Can you hold a unit of heat? Or do you hold a substance that is imbued with heat energy? Seems like a good reason to say the two are not equateable, which was the main point.
Other than that, a specific fields definition of wet does not make the term exclusive to that field. In aquatic science, wet still means something that water is adhering to. Water adheres to itself so water is wet.
If everything water touches is wet, and water touches itself, then water is wet.
wetting is the process of a liquid adhering to a surface. water by definition can’t be wet
Liquids don’t have surfaces?
The property of cohesion means that water is touching and adhering to the surface of other water molecules.
It doesn’t change Tom Fitton being a shit, but facts do matter.
Except for the fact that water by definition is wet
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wet
Fun fact: there is no such thing as a universally accepted definition. Words mean what we mean when we say them. And the vast majority of people use “wet” to describe something that is made up of, touching, or covered in a liquid, especially water. The arbitrary assertion that the definition somehow only applies to solids is just facile contrarianism with no actual basis in linguistics.
yeah but you know what the vast majority of people are like
Solid (frozen) water, commonly referred to as “ice,” can have a surface.
is ice wet?
It can be, but the ice itself is not wet.
By your bizarre definition, yes.
Please offer a better definition that doesn’t cover other, worse, edge cases. Bonus points if it’s useful.
“That which water touches is wet” means air, deserts, and even space can be wet. That seems less than meaningful.
EtA: Also, just wait until you learn about henges
“Wet” Is used as an adjective describing something that consists of or is touching some liquid. Nobody seems to have a problem with the concept of wet paint. I can’t imagine anyone other than Sheldon Cooper saying “technically the wall is wet, the paint is liquid!” If you would say that, I have a locker to shove you in
Does that mean that lava is wet? How about glass? Or a mercury thermometer? Or space, touching liquid/plasmatic hydrogen (or liquified gasses)?
I wouldn’t call any of those wet in my daily life.
Sure. I wouldn’t usually refer to lava as wet, but I also don’t interact with it very often. Glass is an amorphous solid, so not liquid and so not wet unless it’s touching something liquid or is liquid itself. Liquid mercury exists outside of thermometers as well, and it’s wet both in one and out of one. Space isn’t a thing, and so it you can’t be in contact with anything, and so concepts like wetness and dryness don’t really apply.
I also wouldn’t call any of those wet in my daily life, largely because I don’t interact with them very often. I don’t get into hyper pedantic arguments about the ways we define words very often in real life either. Most people simply agree that water is wet
It’s not “less than meaningful” if you understand wet as a relative term. There can be a normal level of wetness where if it is exceeded we then call that thing wet, and if it’s under that threshold we call it dry relative to the norm.
If you somehow came from a perfectly dry environment, yeah, you would probably consider our world pretty wet. You would have a pretty hard time describing your experience to others if you couldn’t use the word wet to do so. The word doesn’t lose meaning just because you go all reductio ad adsurdum with it.
Another note (which you mentioning air made me think of), if water “has no surface” then how does it have “surface tension?” Another point for “water touches water.”
Water touching water surely mixes, no?
Mixing elements would entail the elements dissolving or at least distributing within the mix, making boundaries between them unclear. The mix can however have a clear edge.
Does milk wet cocoa, or do they mix? The hot chocolate of course has a surface, but if you add rum to it does it really adhere to it?
Yes.
It dissolves when wet, sure, but on a molecular level is the cocoa bonding with the water to become some state other than “wet” or “dry,” or is the dissolved cocoa still “wet?”
Matter of fact, we have words to describe the quantity of “wetness.” There’s many synonyms of course, soaked, dessicated, etc, but the base levels are: dry, damp, and wet. If “water is not wet,” then what is it? Do you propose water to be “dry?”
https://feddit.uk/comment/17348047
And thus space, deserts, and air is wet. Which is pretty useless asa definition.
That’s the actual definition. That’s why bad solder joints are called dry joints and melting the solder across a soldering iron tip is called wetting the tip.
But that’s not the definition of wet. Wet is something having liquid adhere to it, usually water. It’s a gained quality. Water doesn’t adhere to itself, it can’t gain the quality of being wet because it is the thing that gives that quality. It’s like saying that fire is burnt. It does the burning.
Actually fire is the byproduct of a chemical reaction. The material being combusted is the one doing the burning. Fire (rather, extreme heat) can cause combustion in other materials, given an oxygen rich environment, but the fire is not itself doing the combustion or burning.
Wetness is not a chemical reaction, so it’s kind of an apples to oranges comparison.
Water literally adheres to itself. That’s one of its most important qualities.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Since heat is thermal energy, it can transfer this thermal energy but it loses some due to the second law of thermodynamics. Water doesn’t lose the ability to adhere to other things when it transfers, so the two phenomenon are not really equateable.
deleted by creator
Fair enough, heat can’t lose heat. However when it interacts with a substance some of the energy is “lost” in that it transfers to the substance. Unless it is a completely inert material.
Can you hold a unit of heat? Or do you hold a substance that is imbued with heat energy? Seems like a good reason to say the two are not equateable, which was the main point.
Other than that, a specific fields definition of wet does not make the term exclusive to that field. In aquatic science, wet still means something that water is adhering to. Water adheres to itself so water is wet.
Heat is indeed hot.
wet
1 of 3
adjective
ˈwet
wetter; wettest
Synonyms of wet
1
a
: consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)
Water definitely consists of water my man
Maybe by your definition, but have you considered that the definitions that I like are the objectively correct ones?
/s shouldn’t be necessary but this is the internet
Honestly, without the /s I would have assumed idiocy over sarcasm. I hate that I would usually be right in doing so.
Water is cohesive which means yes, it does attach to itself. It’s one of the main reasons capillary action works and your blood flows the way it does.
obviously not a lot of blood flow going on in this thread
You can’t wet a lake
Because it’s already wet
Water isn’t you lmao gottem