Talk:in order to

This is in order (thanks, Ruakh) + to. I propose that it be replaced with a redirect to in order, which already contains a corresponding usage example. If search worked better the redirect would not be necessary. Please note the numerous translations. (I am also doing the same thing for in order for, which does require any deletion.) DCDuring TALK 01:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The writers of other dictionaries seem to see some lexical merit in in order to. It is normally listed and explained as a separate line under order. As we do not have that practice, but favor separate entries where other dictionaries have these "sub-entries", we should keep this. Keeping would also be a favor to translators, as the translations are normally not as easy as in+order+to. If not convinced, check the translations-table of in order to.--Hekaheka 09:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The following OneLook dictonaries have a line for "in order to" at their entry for "order", where it appears next to "in order" or "in order that": Websters 1913, RHU, AHD, MWOnline, The ones that apparently do not are Collins, Compact Oxford, Cambridge, WNW. Longmans DCE also has in order to.
 * If this were deleted, the redirect would seem essential to make sure that users found the right entry. The section redirect would take them to the correct part of the right entry. At that entry a translator could consider that the collocation "in order for" was related to "in order to", based on the usage examples. If this were deleted, I would think it highly desirable to move the translations at "in order to" to the correct sense of "in order (adverb)", but as TTBCs.
 * The entry at "in order to" now has various links to other terms like "in order that", which also provide some reference to translators. DCDuring TALK 12:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the odd things about the term is that the "in order" is inessential. It emphasizes an idea to purpose that is already in "to". It also has some value in reducing ambiguity in connection with phrasal verbs with "for" and "to". DCDuring TALK 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why make it so complicated, when we can simply keep in order to? We have entries for all kinds of terms derived from the word order, like just what the doctor ordered, get one's affairs in order, put one's affairs in order, which are much more easily both understood and translated by their parts! --Hekaheka 12:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)`


 * It is a question of of which complication influenced by consideration of change vs no change. We put idioms in because there are aspects of the meaning that might be unexpected. Why have a monolingual dictionary at all? It's usually easier to figure out the meaning from context. The point is that, once someone has stumbled over some odd term, we need to give them good help. It is important that the user find an entry that gives help so we should support that need. If search were better we wouldn't even need a redirect, the reader would find "in order to" in related or derived terms at "order" and/or "in order" as well as in idioms using it and even quotations using it.
 * I think that it is somewhat misleading to translators and others to have a full entry at in order to because it is to easy for them to miss the underlying grammar. I don't know how many languages have:
 * a particle just like "to" used in many infinitive constructions including those indicating purpose
 * a particle only used for infinitives, no particle for purpose
 * a particle for purpose, no particle for infinitives
 * two different particles
 * Of course, there are more basic questions of whether the language has something like an infinitive used for this purpose.
 * Is it important for the translator to realize that "in order" is inessential to the meaning but useful to reduce ambiguity? Should that be part of one of the translations the translators offer?
 * This gets to the question of how many different purposes Wiktionary can serve well. One person's nuance is another person's complication. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * One more point of view to consider, and then I give up: given the thousands of SoP's we have - what harm does it do, if we keep this damn thing? --Hekaheka 17:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only that it might be misleading. DCDuring TALK 18:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be equally as misleading to delete it, because the grammatical analysis isn't as simple as it seems to the modern eye. See the tea room.  Uncle G 14:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep In many languages it's translated as a single word. Anatoli 23:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And grammatically this is a particle, like to, emphasized ? DCDuring TALK 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see now. I missed the in order entry. I will abstain for the moment. Anatoli 00:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to in order but this smells like a no consensus to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No consensus, kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Preposition
From the 16c. to the 19c. used as a complex preposition meaning ‘with a view to the bringing about of, for the purpose of (some prospective end)’: e.g. A meeting ought… to be called… in order to a regular opposition in parliament —Burke, 1773 --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)