1

I am trying to use the expression:

  1. A reacts to and acts upon B.

The intended meaning is that B influences A ("A reacts to B"), and that A influences B ("A acts upon B"). However, the above expression 1 feels a bit clumsy, so I would like to use something more readable.

I have found several examples of this alternative expression 2 being used. It seems way more readable:

  1. A reacts and acts upon B

Expression 2 is more readable because it uses one common preposition ("upon") for both verbs. However, I am not sure if it is correct. I know that "acts + upon" is a correct combination (it is also used in expression 1). However, I am not sure that "reacts + upon" is a correct combination. Shouldn't one say "reacts + to" as in expression 1? Can "upon" be used with "reacts" in the place of "to", given the meaning of the sentence?

Thank you.

Improve this question
1
  • 2
    More context in your text samples would be helpful. It’s almost always the case that context is critical.
    – Paul Tanenbaum
    Aug 31 at 12:06

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
-1
+50

You haven't given any context, but unless you're speaking about a specific field such as chemistry where "react" and "acts upon" might have specific meanings as terminology that would be recognised by those within that field, then no - from an everyday grammar perspective, it doesn't sound natural at all.

In everyday language, reciprocal reactions are generally referred to as "interaction", for example, "they interact with each other". To "act upon" something does not generally mean to influence it. For example, "he acted upon the information" doesn't mean he affected or influenced the information - it means he used what he learned to do something else.

If you are speaking to a specific field where terminology is used then this question would be better directed to those in that field as it would not be a question about English language.

Improve this answer
3
  • @caleb That quote is from a book written in Italian and then translated into English. Perhaps it is a poor translation, or perhaps there was no equivalent English expression for that phrase so they went for a 'gloss' translation (word for word, without any thought to the loss of idiomatic meaning). Your question is here is about speaking or writing in English, and what I said stands.
    – Astralbee
    Sep 4 at 17:51
  • @caleb I'm voting to close your question as you are not providing the research.
    – Astralbee
    Sep 5 at 12:00
  • @caleb These are all textbooks. As I said in my answer: "If you are speaking to a specific field where terminology is used then this question would be better directed to those in that field as it would not be a question about English language". It might make sense in some very specific contexts, but your question about [x] and [y] is so non-specific I still couldn't say that it is natural and will always make sense.
    – Astralbee
    Sep 5 at 15:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .