Is Water Wet?

[Treamayne]

6 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

My statement is that water does not have the intrinsic property of being wet.

But that statement is also false (or, at least, not true as written - requires clarification). By the definition "Made up of liquid or moisture"

• Water, as a gas, is comprised of moisture as vapor or steam.
• Water, as a liquid, is made up of liquid
• Water, as a solid, is made up of liquid in a crystal matrix (ice)

 

[Immortal Platypus]

41 minutes ago, Treamayne said:

But that statement is also false (or, at least, not true as written - requires clarification). By the definition "Made up of liquid or moisture"

• Water, as a gas, is comprised of moisture as vapor or steam.
• Water, as a liquid, is made up of liquid
• Water, as a solid, is made up of liquid in a crystal matrix (ice)

 

yeah, I was arguing that water, as a liquid, is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. as i've considered this more, I think I may have to shift my decision (based purely on the dictionary definition). if we define wet as "covered in water" (which is what i've been thinking of, I forgot about saturated) than I would say that being wet is not an intrinsic characteristic.

however, using the definition (which mentions saturated as an alternative to covered) water would be wet, because while one molecule is composed of hydrogen and oxygen (which one could argue means it's not saturated with water), they are hydrogen-bonded together (which imo means that they are water, meaning that the molecule is composed of water).

So, my opinion has changed. Water is wet when using the definition provided by dictionaries. I don't know if I fully agree with that definition, but using that definition, water is wet.

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

1 hour ago, Immortal Platypus said:

yeah, I was arguing that water, as a liquid, is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. as i've considered this more, I think I may have to shift my decision (based purely on the dictionary definition). if we define wet as "covered in water" (which is what i've been thinking of, I forgot about saturated) than I would say that being wet is not an intrinsic characteristic.

however, using the definition (which mentions saturated as an alternative to covered) water would be wet, because while one molecule is composed of hydrogen and oxygen (which one could argue means it's not saturated with water), they are hydrogen-bonded together (which imo means that they are water, meaning that the molecule is composed of water).

So, my opinion has changed. Water is wet when using the definition provided by dictionaries. I don't know if I fully agree with that definition, but using that definition, water is wet.

A win for us wetty pants!

[Immortal Platypus]

7 hours ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

A win for us wetty pants!

please, for your sake, never call yourself that again

[Ψιτιsτηε Βεsτ]

On 10/24/2024 at 1:11 PM, SpiritOfWrath said:

A win for us wetty pants!

...

...

...

But Water is indeed wet.

[strmblsd he/him]

15 hours ago, ΨιτιsτηεΒέsτ said:

...

...

...

But Water is indeed wet.

nope its definitely dru

[Ψιτιsτηε Βεsτ]

7 hours ago, strmblsd said:

nope its definitely dru

explain

[strmblsd he/him]

25 minutes ago, ΨιτιsτηεΒέsτ said:

explain

well if you get down small enough all wet is is the existence of a liquid on an object and water is said liquid (usually) and as a process of this it is not wet but just surrounded by itself so water is not wet. we can be wet from water but water itself isnt wet

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

1 minute ago, strmblsd said:

well if you get down small enough all wet is is the existence of a liquid on an object and water is said liquid (usually) and as a process of this it is not wet but just surrounded by itself so water is not wet. we can be wet from water but water itself isnt wet

See my previous arguments.

Wet = saturated with liquid = liquid inside or around given space

Water molecule = water + space = water around space = liquid inside or around space = saturated with liquid = WET!

And so ends my formal proof. 

*bows*

[strmblsd he/him]

7 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

See my previous arguments.

Wet = saturated with liquid = liquid inside or around given space

Water molecule = water + space = water around space = liquid inside or around space = saturated with liquid = WET!

And so ends my formal proof. 

*bows*

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

Just now, strmblsd said:

You're not disproving my point.

[strmblsd he/him]

1 minute ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

You're not disproving my point.

im just proving mine is more correct that water is not wet

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

1 minute ago, strmblsd said:

im just proving mine is more correct that water is not wet

But im proving that water can be wet. And since logic, if something is not wet and sorta wet, then it turns out to be WET!

[Ψιτιsτηε Βεsτ]

1 hour ago, strmblsd said:

well if you get down small enough all wet is is the existence of a liquid on an object and water is said liquid (usually) and as a process of this it is not wet but just surrounded by itself so water is not wet. we can be wet from water but water itself isnt wet

 

1 hour ago, strmblsd said:

You trust google?  Wet is the presence of water on a thing. You cannot have water without multiple water molecules. Water is a plural word by nature. Therefore it will always have water on itself being surrounded by itself. Therefore, wet.

[Immortal Platypus]

1 hour ago, strmblsd said:

well if you get down small enough all wet is is the existence of a liquid on an object and water is said liquid (usually) and as a process of this it is not wet but just surrounded by itself so water is not wet. we can be wet from water but water itself isnt wet

*or saturation. Because saturation counts, and water will always be saturated by water, water must therefore always be wet.

1 hour ago, strmblsd said:

unless you can find an actual definition that doesn't include saturation, water is saturated with water and is therefore wet

28 minutes ago, ΨιτιsτηεΒέsτ said:

 

Wet is the presence of water on a thing. You cannot have water without multiple water molecules. Water is a plural word by nature. Therefore it will always have water on itself being surrounded by itself. Therefore, wet.

1) wet, by definition, is either a coating of water (or another liquid) or a saturation. 2) hate to break it to you, but that's not true. I cited an expirement earlier that proved that you can isolate a water molecule.

[Ψιτιsτηε Βεsτ]

1 hour ago, Immortal Platypus said:

*or saturation. Because saturation counts, and water will always be saturated by water, water must therefore always be wet.

unless you can find an actual definition that doesn't include saturation, water is saturated with water and is therefore wet

1) wet, by definition, is either a coating of water (or another liquid) or a saturation. 2) hate to break it to you, but that's not true. I cited an expirement earlier that proved that you can isolate a water molecule.

yes but it is no longer water. it is a water molecule. The word water is plural.

[Immortal Platypus]

22 minutes ago, ΨιτιsτηεΒέsτ said:

yes but it is no longer water. it is a water molecule. The word water is plural.

no it's not. Water is a mass noun, with the plural being waters. Because English is stupid, we don't actually use the plural when talking about it. It's the same concept as sand or fish. We usually use sand and fish, but the actual plurals are sands and fishes. Another good way to tell is taking your example of a water molecule. That can be reversed to a molecule of water, meaning that water is singular.

This is a good explanation of mass nouns from Merriam-Webster.

also, a water molecule is not water?  What is it then?

Edited October 29, 2024 by Immortal Platypus

[Ψιτιsτηε Βεsτ]

25 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

no it's not. Water is a mass noun, with the plural being waters. Because English is stupid, we don't actually use the plural when talking about it. It's the same concept as sand or fish. We usually use sand and fish, but the actual plurals are sands and fishes. Another good way to tell is taking your example of a water molecule. That can be reversed to a molecule of water, meaning that water is singular.

This is a good explanation of mass nouns from Merriam-Webster.

also, a water molecule is not water?  What is it then?

Fine. English is amazing complex even that fluent natural speakers are still confused. Incredible.

[Immortal Platypus]

22 minutes ago, ΨιτιsτηεΒέsτ said:

Fine. English is amazing complex even that fluent natural speakers are still confused. Incredible.

such a truly idiotic language. and also a great one. after all, read and lead rhyme, and so do read and lead, but read and lead don't, and neither do read and lead.

[echo74 she/her]

i'm a little late to this but anyways-----

 

For me, I define wet as the ability to make other things wet which is... ummm yeah... it's wet... so water is wet because it's able to make other things wet and those other things are able to make other things wet. Yup. When its no longer wet, it can no longer transfer its wetness to other things.

[Lord Stormer]

Should I insert absorption into the equation? I'm sure none of you will have this debate in the first place if the skin is unable to absorb moisture.

Here where it's goes interesting. Water is cohesive - the molecules have a high affinity of in attracting each other - and that's why it form droplets. Some insects can travel on water without getting wet and some animals have skin that does not absorb moisture. These creatures would disagree if water is wet.

But there is another property - adhesion. Water has also a high affinity of sticking to surfaces. That's why we had a hard time rinsing off water off our skins after a handwash unless we have an absorbing agent (tissues, towels) or wait until it evaporates. When water has been absorbed, it sticks. In this context, water is wetter than other liquids like alcohol or some hydrocarbons.

So, water is not so wet compared to other liquids, but if your skin is a good absorber, it is very wet.

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

Okay, time to end this once and for all.

Well...

Short answer: probably yes

Long answer: According to the dictionary, the term "wet" is defined as "covered or saturated with water or another liquid." Nothing in this definition states that liquid itself is wet, only that items covered in liquid are wet. So honestly, it depends.

A single water molecule, such as you might find in a mist, is technically not wet, since it is not in contact with any liquid other than itself. In a larger collection of molecules, though, say a raindrop, the water IS wet because each molecule is covered in other molecules of liquid. Of course, even this is the simple answer.

If we want to go really deep, the word "cover", as seen in the definition for "wet", is defined as "to envelop in a layer of something." The word "envelop" is defined as "wrap up, cover, or surround completely."

So, the definition of "wet" is: "wrapped up, covered, surrounded completely, or saturated by water or another liquid." Note the "surrounded completely". Keeping with the raindrop example, this would mean that only the molecules in the center of the drop are wet, not the ones on the outer edge, since they aren't completely surrounded. 

Of course, this is all overlooking the "saturated" part of the definition, but since molecules can't be saturated with other molecules, I think that can be disregarded.

So, how'd I do? Did I resolve the question once and for all?

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

8 minutes ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

Okay, time to end this once and for all.

Well...

Short answer: probably yes

Long answer: According to the dictionary, the term "wet" is defined as "covered or saturated with water or another liquid." Nothing in this definition states that liquid itself is wet, only that items covered in liquid are wet. So honestly, it depends.

A single water molecule, such as you might find in a mist, is technically not wet, since it is not in contact with any liquid other than itself. In a larger collection of molecules, though, say a raindrop, the water IS wet because each molecule is covered in other molecules of liquid. Of course, even this is the simple answer.

If we want to go really deep, the word "cover", as seen in the definition for "wet", is defined as "to envelop in a layer of something." The word "envelop" is defined as "wrap up, cover, or surround completely."

So, the definition of "wet" is: "wrapped up, covered, surrounded completely, or saturated by water or another liquid." Note the "surrounded completely". Keeping with the raindrop example, this would mean that only the molecules in the center of the drop are wet, not the ones on the outer edge, since they aren't completely surrounded. 

Of course, this is all overlooking the "saturated" part of the definition, but since molecules can't be saturated with other molecules, I think that can be disregarded.

So, how'd I do? Did I resolve the question once and for all?

Hey hey hey! The molecules are saturated with themselves!

The H2O is saturate with 2 H and an O, coincidentally what water is!

(This point has been maaaade before. *wail*)

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

15 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

The H2O is saturate with 2 H and an O, coincidentally what water is!

According to the dictionary, "saturated" is defined as "(of an organic molecule) containing the greatest possible number of hydrogen atoms, and so having no carbon-carbon double or triple bonds."

Hydrogen alone does not make water.

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

2 minutes ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

According to the dictionary, "saturated" is defined as "(of an organic molecule) containing the greatest possible number of hydrogen atoms, and so having no carbon-carbon double or triple bonds."

Hydrogen alone does not make water.

But that is a separate definition of saturated, my guy.