used to

that:
used to mean something or someone that has already been talked about or seen.

used to:
used to say that something happened continuously or frequently during a period in the past.

only to do something:
used to show that something is surprising or unexpected.

for:
used to indicate the place someone or something is going to or toward.

Source: some dictionaries.

---

"To" could not be substituted with "in order to".
Could "to", "to", and "to" each be substituted by "in order to"? What do you say?

GoldfishLord said:

Source: some dictionaries.

Click to expand...

Please tell us which dictionaries - provide links

GoldfishLord said:

---

"To" could not be substituted with "in order to".

Click to expand...

Di you create that sentence? If so, why did you ask the following question?

GoldfishLord said:

Could "to", "to", and "to" each be substituted by "in order to"? What do you say?

Click to expand...

As far as I remember, some said that "to", "to", and "to" each could be substituted by "in order to", but others disagreed.
I'm not sure which is correct.

I'm not sure why you're spending so much time with this micro-analysis. I wouldn't expect a word to mean anything all by itself.

I'm confused. I'm perplexed. Do you think replacing "to" with "in order to" is an improvement somehow?

I just wonder if "to", "to", and "to" each have the same role as "in order to".
I think that I could improve my English by exchanging opinions with native English speakers.

GoldfishLord said:

I just wonder if "to", "to", and "to" each have the same role as "in order to".
I think that I could improve my English by exchanging opinions with native English speakers.

Click to expand...

In all of the original sentences, "in order" could be added before the coloured "to" with no change in meaning. However, it's unnecessary and, in my opinion, worse than the originals. I agree with Tarheel that there is no benefit in your spending time picking these things apart.