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.
wetting is the process of a liquid adhering to a surface. water by definition can’t be wet
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
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.
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.