I’m firmly on the side of “water is not wet” in this debate, but it’s a question that I was asked while I was high and have no answer to it. Water cannot itself be wet because you can’t get water on water. However, what is a fish in a lake? It can’t be wet until it’s taken out of the water, but it’s not dry either. Is it something else?
Submerged
Submerged
-ness
it is wet, just covered in a lot more water
Particle man, particle man
Doing the things a particle can
…
When he’s underwater does he get wet?
Or does the water get him instead?
Nobody knows, Particle man
A living fish is immersed in water.
I like immersed, I would also accept submerged
what about drenched (or my incorrect but preferred derived slang: draunched?). If one is submerged or immersed, are you also… drenched?
Now this is an answer I can get behind
Water cannot itself be wet because you can’t get water on water.
I disagree with this assessment.
Water itself is wet. It’s an inherent property.
Water on water changes nothing. It’s still wet.
Water is a liquid. Water on something not wet makes it wet - through wet water attachment. It’s wet as long as it has water attached.
Something not wet submerged in water consequently must be wet. Although it’s not particularly verifyable due to its submerged nature. You touching it means also touching all the water around it. But I don’t see how it’s wet property would be different from it with only a little water on it.
Thinking of a sponge - it will take in water and be considered wet. This also is the case in water. It won’t stay indistinguishable.
Moisture is the essence of wetness, wetness is the essence of beauty.
what is the property of something in water?
Submergence?
Saturation.
Saturation is moreso about having water (or any substance, really) within and throughout a thing. Being in or out of water doesn’t matter since that’s just concerning the outside.
