>>73013911False, water is super wet. Wetness is a necessary component to induce wetness, you cannot just waive away this crucial property like an inconsequential happenstance. One that is not wet has no ability to wet things (yo mama and her water dragon dildo being an anomalous exception). Sand and clothes cannot be used to wet things, unless they are wet themselves. Water is intrinsically wet. It cannot become wet because it is already wet. Water and wetness is an inseparable concept. It is by and unto itself the same entity. Anything is equal to itself. This is the reason why the phrase "water is wet" is commonly used to utter tautology. Water = wet, water is water, wet is wet, water is wet.
Same reasoning applies to fire. You also used the same linguistic sleight of hand to shift the original argument. You are arguing that water is wet, but along the sapir-whorfistic verbiage, you changed the argument to: water can be wet, or the fire can be burned. This has a very different meaning than the original statement.
