Sorry, but you need to study some linguistics ...
Re+in+carm+ate - two prefixes, one affix.
One can not reach a valid conclusion by using a double standard.
your "re" again s valid but it is logically invalid when using affixes, to solate, the first to prove our point, while
isgnoring the other 2.
so if "-in-" means to make, and
"-ate" means "act of""
Then "re-in-carn-ate" = "agan making carn acto of" or in English word order, the "act of making carn again"
which makes "carn" (flesh or meat) the operant word the others simply being modifiers of the root.
If oou bothered to read, or understant yourtached URL, "reincarnation" asherein described is impossible, and answers your question as it can´t be real because it refers to an imaginary concept, the soul. So the theory is that when the body "carn" dies, the imaginary soul leves it and enter another pre-existing body. So the illogic is based on to ambiguous meaning of the word "in".
In the first, it means "enter" as if the imaginary suld whch has non substance enters another carn.
In the second, it means "to make" as in enable, which a different process.
The theological theory a invented during a prescientific era before societ undeerstood that the person that we refer to is simply a body, carn, conroled by te brain. The Brain unlike a computer has no phyical memory bank, so when the power is off the bain die, along with memory, skills, personality. So the maginary concept of soul, if it gets associated with a different bod, can not morally be rewarded or punished for the actions of the body in whichit theoretically inhabited in the first place.
This topic is incapable of going anywhere, because there is no evidence that there is such a thing as a soul. So until its existance and fnition is stablished, all discussions of reincanation are simply based on myths and folklore from a prescientific era.