help reinvent language with physics

>>9133121

I would start with the way that dryness and wetness are relative to each other. The existence of one concept is dependent on the other. For a fish that is submerged it's entire life, the concept of dryness is nonexistent. This makes the concept of wetness irrelevant. Therefore, fish cannot be wet.

File: 12767101_f496.jpg (31KB, 496x298px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 496x298px

Actually it seems like fish 'sweat' water. They're also totally coated with oils like mammals are. I don't think eukaryotic cells do very well when they're permanently submerged in water so there has to be a medium constantly between the fish and the water, leaving us to consider them 'dry'. Although we can say one can be 'wet' with oil, that would mean that humans are also constantly wet as our own skin isn't dry like a rock. So for the sake of practicality, the definition of wet must mean the subject matter being in direct contact with water.


Notwithstanding this idea that fish are dry in the water, the argument ultimately will need to address whether or not water itself is defined as 'wet'.

>quantum behavior
>in etymology
Just stop. You're not good enough at anything to realize exactly how nonsensical every part of this is.

>>9133124

Although with this logic, fish being dry for this reason is like saying human being are not all of the irrelevant things we are.


A boy is not a sea otter. It's irrelevant to humans to consider whether or not a boy is an otter, but that does not mean that a boy is not a kangaroo. A boy is not an otter.