Talk:reageo

RFV discussion: March–April 2019
Latin by. Not in the usual dictionaries, not in PHI (so not in the classical corpus), and I only found scannos for "reageat" and "reageant" in Google Books. The verb is attested in Mediaeval/New Latin, so I'm guessing this is a mistake. Note to closer: if this fails, all the inflected forms have to be deleted as well. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The OED says "Compare post-classical Latin reagere (4th cent.), Middle French, French réagir to act (on) (1516 in an apparently isolated attestation with reference to alchemy), to produce a reciprocal or responsive effect (on) (1771 with reference to physics, 1774 with reference to physiology, 1831 with reference to chemistry" in its etymology of "react". SemperBlotto (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is; that's about, which I already mentioned is attested. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly in error, also considering the noun (used by Newton). All of this seems to be non-Classical Latin. In any case, reageo delendum est.  --Lambiam 17:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I can find some instances of strings which are homographic to those which are listed as inflected forms of this word, but do they mean this and/or could they be forms of reago? In the case of reaget and "reagent" it seems to come down to whether it's in present or future tense:

"Reaget" is also used in this book.
 * 1685, Petri Poireti Cogitationum rationalium de Deo, anima, et malo, libri quatuor: , book III, chapter XIII, page 372:
 * [...] superficies obvia, (quae caussae impellentis vel reagentis vices gerit) aequaliter, sive ad angulos rectos reaget: ubi autem oblique; tunc superficies obvis oblique reaget & proportionaliter: [...] Ergo superficies tacta E C F aequaliter tactu suo reaget in pilam & in superficies ejus: [...]
 * 1769, Bened Stattler, Philosophia methodo scientiis propria explanata Aug. vindelicorum, sumpt Matthoei Rieger et filiorum, page 40:
 * Tantum & tamdiu corpora in incursu, occursu, vel concursu agent, & reagent: donec s[l/t?]atuum illorum dissimilitudo vel oppositio sublata sit. Vis enim agendi vel reagendi constanter inest, [...]. Tamdiu ergo aget, aut reaget, quamdiu haec conditio dabitur.
 * 1935, Douglas MacKie, Niels Hugh de Vaudrey Heathcote, The Discovery of Specific and Latent Heats
 * [...]; fiet tamen mixtum plures habens quam duos gradus caloris, quia calidum ut quatuor reaget in frigidum ut sex; attamen pauciores quam quatuor gradus caloris, quia frigidum sex reaget in calidum ut quatuor: Neque fiet mixtum calidum ut tria, [...]
 * 1995, Medioevo:
 * page 326, note 178: Similiter arguitur quod a agat in n intendendo eius caliditatem, quia si a intendet caliditatem ipsius b, tunc b reaget in caliditatem ipsius a, et [...]
 * page 369, page 304: et sit c pars in quam sufficit reagere  in quam reaget b, que terminatur ad c punctum in a...
 * page 370, note 306: Per idem arguitur quod b non reaget per aliquam partem a, quia, si sic, [...]

- -sche (discuss) 18:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's unambiguous that all these examples are for, even if you don't know much Latin. Just look for the nearest verb in the same syntax and you'll see it's in the future tense each time: 1769 has aget and dabitur; 1935 has fiet; 1995 has intendet. (Not enough context was included in the 1685 cite, but if you go look, you'll see immutabitur, and reagentis is clearly a present participle.) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Meta beat me to it. More evidence: the form reagitus (specific to the supposed reageo) is not found in the literature, while reactus and reagit (specific to reago) are easily attested. --Lambiam 19:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)