Is water wet? Science vs Grammar

[TAMAnnoying]

Time for the science vs grammar politics!

This question came up recently with a group of friends and I’m curious to see people’s responces.

[Jenny-Toons]

Scientifically, no -- but it can be diluted. Grammar-wise, yes -- but it's seen as an action.

When water (or any other liquid) is placed on something, it had made that object wet. But if water is placed on water, it's just water. It's not wet in that way.

Now, if you place another liquid within water, or water within another liquid, it's just dilution. You're taking out the excess/concentration of the liquid (be it water or something else), but it's not wet.

For it to be wet scientifically, it has to easily be separated or dried. Example -- a wet towel. It has water in it. So it needs to be dried to not be wet anymore.

But when water is combined with another liquid, it's not as easy to separate or dry. If you strain the combined liquids through a strainer, they will still be together (unless it's oil or something similar). If evaporation happens (liquid's equivalent to "dried"), they're likely to evaporate together (unless it's oil or something similar).

Now, if you're talking about "the water has wet the towel" in terms of grammar -- THEN it's wet. Because "wet" in this case is used as an action. The water is doing an action towards the towel, which is "wet".

[Cavechan]

Oh god... my coworkers and I have had this heated discussion before... along with "is a hot dog a sandwich" and "what is the correct way to pronounce 'gif'?"

I think we came to the conclusion that no, water is not wet. I don't remember all the reasons for it though.

[punkarsenic]

Now, if you're talking about "the water has wet the towel" in terms of grammar -- THEN it's wet. Because "wet" in this case is used as an action. The water is doing an action towards the towel, which is "wet".

yeah, like, water is a wet experience but water cannot experience wetness, so its two subtly different definitions of wet.

[writercynknapp]

Wet Water to Whet My Immeasurable Thirst.
So the water can be experienced as having the quality of wetness.
And yet, extremely cold water (ice) could hurt your body in even trying to ingest it. That would be water with no wetness at all to slake thirst.

[mrtoontastic]

I mean, how we are we talking? Wet? Science-Wet? Diluted? Hard Watered? Lightweight? Smelted? Evaporated? Condensed? Dry-Iced? We got flavors of all kinds, take your pick.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

Well...I've been studying in labs for a couple years now, and to me it seems like most chemists use the word "wet" to mean "contains H2O". So not only would water be naturally wet, it would be the "ultimate wetness": you can't get the water out of water. Which brings me to:

Now, if you place another liquid within water, or water within another liquid, it's just dilution. You're taking out the excess/concentration of the liquid (be it water or something else), but it's not wet.

For it to be wet scientifically, it has to easily be separated or dried. Example -- a wet towel. It has water in it. So it needs to be dried to not be wet anymore.

We can dry liquids, too; very easily, in fact. ^^ You just have to look at the compounds themselves and figure out what makes them different. They could have different densities or different polarities, or different heats of evaporation (yeah, some solutions actually WON'T evaporate at the same temp as water, even if they're aqueous solutions). If it's a different chemical, there's always a difference. And as chemists, it's our job to find it and exploit it. ;]

All that is to say that there are "wet" liquids, and we call them that because they contain water. Simple as that. If it's a dilution, that just means it's even wetter.

[Jenny-Toons]

"wet" to mean "contains H2O"

Exactly -- like a towel or a something that has water on it. But water on water is just water. It's not holding water -- it is water.

So not only would water be naturally wet, it would be the "ultimate wetness":

But that makes no sense (at least to me). If water is within itself, it's part of itself. It's not making itself wet. It's just part of it.

Now, if you're talking about the action of water making something damp or putting water on something, then it becomes wet, yeah that I can agree with. Water becomes "wet" as an action. But being water itself alone doesn't make it wet. It just exists.

However, I can agree with the "Wet liquids" part of your post -- it's why I mentioned oil and liquids similar to oil's properties because, while being a liquid, it has different properties from water.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

But that makes no sense (at least to me). If water is within itself, it's part of itself. It's not making itself wet. It's just part of it.

I don't know how to explain it, but it feels like it makes sense to me... ^^'

I think it's like that "tree falls in a forest" topic I started some time ago...we're actually both giving correct answers, depending on the particular viewpoint.

If you think of "wet" as a condition conferred upon an object by something like water, then of course water can't be wet, it can only make things wet.

But if you think of "wet" as an intrinsic property of certain things that can be detected, then of course water is wet, and wet things are only called such because they contain water (or other liquid).

Your viewpoint is the former. Mine is the latter.