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?
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.
Water itself cannot be wet, because wetness is a property applied to something that has gotten water on it. Water can neither be wet or dry, because those properties require the presence (or lack thereof) of water on something that itself is not water. When swimming, you don’t feel wet until you’re no longer in the water. That’s because there is an equal amount of water to skin on your body; (thanks to others for helping me) you’re immersed in water. Describing water as wet is like describing oil as “covered in oil”.