Following up on August’s conundrum, we asked for people’s opinions about the wetness of water. Was it a silly question with an obvious answer? Respondents were divided, with exactly half agreeing that water is, in fact, wet, with the other half declaring, “It’s complicated.” Some of the cited complications were the water’s temperature, purity, and angle of contact to a surface. This prompts a followup question: Is there a difference between water *being* wet, as opposed to *making things* wet?
The original conundrum did explain the difference raised in the last question. An imperfect analogy: a yellow pigment and a blue pigment – neither are green coloured, but together they can make something green coloured.
Wetness is an organoleptic sensation. It describes a feeling evoked by an item that gives an impression that either absorbs or adsorbs, and can release, a substantial amount of water. If the actual liquid is not water, then I would say the item “feels” or “looks” rather than “is” wet. If the sensation is purely visual, I would say that it only “looks” wet. Since water absorbs (more) water, and conveys the wetness sensation, I would say both that it is wet, and it can make other things wet, according to their water-absorbing properties.