Wetness is not a property which can be applied to a liquid— only a solid which has come in contact with liquid.
Adding liquid to liquid just makes more liquid, not “wet” liquid.
Now, I suppose there could be rare exceptions to this— if an especially viscous liquid were able to produce a surface upon which another, less viscous liquid might make contact with, then that would result in “the surface of X liquid is wetted by Y liquid”— but, even then, the property of wetness only applies to the semi-solid/liquid surface (a property similar to a solid), and not because they, say, mixed. Mixed liquid just form new liquids, compounds, etc. not “wet” ones.
The explanation was in the original comment. I simply clarified due to your misunderstanding.
Look, this is a mix of both logic and linguistics (which isn’t always logical). Even if it doesn’t make sense to you, this is how it is. I suggest that you accept it, however, if you refuse to accept it, the next logical course of action would be to invent a new word which describes liquids touching liquids. Most would call it “a mixture“, but people like you are often unsatisfied with anything you don’t make up yourselves.
I look forward to hearing what new word you may come up with.
To repeat: I already gave a well-defined reason in my initial comment. It’s your choice whether or not to accept it.
I suppose being overly contrarian and argumentative might entertain you, but I’m not going to indulge such childishness (or, perhaps, ignorance) further.
Water is, in fact, not wet. Like any liquid, it can only make wet what it touches/soaks. Wetness is a property bestowed upon other things (primarily solid objects) which come into contact with a liquid, but not the liquid itself.
And, no, adding water to water doesn’t result in “wet” water- just more water.
This is just an assertion that wetness is a property only bestowed on solids. There is no reason given for this, and I have no basis to believe that it is true based on the aforementioned linguistics.
I refer you to the top comment: a very common English expression that “water is wet.”
You’re looking for logic in human linguistics. That is your mistake.
It is what it is, and it’s simply for you to either accept or have a lack of acceptance. But that’s what wetness is, regardless of your counter arguments.
If you can’t accept that, that’s your problem. It doesn’t change the nature of wetness.
This is why I don’t argue with flat earthers or holocaust deniers. People like you can’t be reasoned with.
Why doesn’t “wet” count if the liquid is in contact with other liquid molecules?
Sounds like special pleading to me.
Wetness is not a property which can be applied to a liquid— only a solid which has come in contact with liquid.
Adding liquid to liquid just makes more liquid, not “wet” liquid.
Now, I suppose there could be rare exceptions to this— if an especially viscous liquid were able to produce a surface upon which another, less viscous liquid might make contact with, then that would result in “the surface of X liquid is wetted by Y liquid”— but, even then, the property of wetness only applies to the semi-solid/liquid surface (a property similar to a solid), and not because they, say, mixed. Mixed liquid just form new liquids, compounds, etc. not “wet” ones.
That’s not a reason though, that’s just reasserting the premise.
The explanation was in the original comment. I simply clarified due to your misunderstanding.
Look, this is a mix of both logic and linguistics (which isn’t always logical). Even if it doesn’t make sense to you, this is how it is. I suggest that you accept it, however, if you refuse to accept it, the next logical course of action would be to invent a new word which describes liquids touching liquids. Most would call it “a mixture“, but people like you are often unsatisfied with anything you don’t make up yourselves.
I look forward to hearing what new word you may come up with.
“That’s just how it is” isn’t a reason either.
To repeat: I already gave a well-defined reason in my initial comment. It’s your choice whether or not to accept it.
I suppose being overly contrarian and argumentative might entertain you, but I’m not going to indulge such childishness (or, perhaps, ignorance) further.
This is just an assertion that wetness is a property only bestowed on solids. There is no reason given for this, and I have no basis to believe that it is true based on the aforementioned linguistics.
I refer you to the top comment: a very common English expression that “water is wet.”
You’re looking for logic in human linguistics. That is your mistake.
It is what it is, and it’s simply for you to either accept or have a lack of acceptance. But that’s what wetness is, regardless of your counter arguments.
If you can’t accept that, that’s your problem. It doesn’t change the nature of wetness.
This is why I don’t argue with flat earthers or holocaust deniers. People like you can’t be reasoned with.
Nice edit.
How dare I be pedantic when you were doing it first LMAO!
It seems like if it were true you’d have an actual reason instead of calling me irrational. I guess that’s just how it is though.
You sure got big mad for me asking you to explain your pedantry though. Probably because you know I’m right, huh?
I mean, isn’t that what you were doing in your first comment?