We are interested in its sense as a noun to mean ...

[GoldfishLord]

row

The word row has many different meanings, but we are interested in its sense as a noun to mean “a noisy dispute” and a verb to mean “to noisily argue.”** Row can be used in this sense as in While my friends and I like to row about the best ninja turtle, in the end, we agree it is obviously Donatello. This sense of row is first recorded in the 1740s, but its origin is unknown.

Source: Thesaurus.com https://www.thesaurus.com/e/ways-to-say/synonyms-for-argue/

What's the role of "to"?

 

[jutfrank]

It marks an infinitive verb.

 

[GoldfishLord]

Is it "the to-infinitive to replace a relative clause" that this source talks about: The TO-infinitive to replace a relative clause | Grammaring?

 

[jutfrank]

No, it expresses purpose/intention:

... its sense as a noun with the purpose/intention of meaning 'a noisy dispute'

The infinitive marker to always expresses a basic sense of orientation. Very often this orientation can better be called 'purpose' or 'intention'. In these cases, I call the verb phrase an infinitive of purpose. It's similar to the other example you asked about most recently.

 

[GoldfishLord]

Could we also substitute (to mean “a noisy dispute” and a verb to mean “to noisily argue.”) with (in order for the word row to mean “a noisy dispute” and a verb in order for the word row to mean “to noisily argue.”)?

 

[jutfrank]

No, not at all.

 

[GoldfishLord]

but we are interested in its sense as a noun to mean “a noisy dispute” and a verb to mean “to noisily argue.”

---

I understand what the bold parts mean, not what the underlined parts mean.
Do underlined parts mean roughly "in order for us to express “a noisy dispute”" and "in order for us to express to mean “to noisily argue”".

 

[jutfrank]

Many words have various senses. We're interested in one particular sense of the word 'row', which is the sense that can be defined as 'a noisy dispute'. This sense comes when it's working as a noun.

 

[GoldfishLord]

Many words have various senses. We're interested in one particular sense of the word 'row', which is the sense that can be defined as 'a noisy dispute'. This sense comes when it's working as a noun.

This reply is easily comprehensible to me.

---

The word row has many different meanings, but we are interested in its sense as a noun to mean “a noisy dispute” and a verb to mean “to noisily argue.”** Row can be used in this sense as in While my friends and I like to row about the best ninja turtle, in the end, we agree it is obviously Donatello. This sense of row is first recorded in the 1740s, but its origin is unknown.

It would seem that your previous explanation doesn't fit if "to"s are infinitives of purpose

 

[jutfrank]

What? What doesn't fit where? I'm losing the will to continue with this. Tell me exactly which part you don't understand.

 

[GoldfishLord]

I'm sorry. Is "to" "in order to"?

 

[jutfrank]

No.

Tell me which part of the sentence you don't understand.

 

[GoldfishLord]

Thanks for your patience.

---

The word row has many different meanings, but we are interested in (its sense as a noun to mean “a noisy dispute” and a verb to mean “to noisily argue.”)

---

It seems to me that "a noun to mean “a noisy dispute” and a verb to mean “to noisily argue.”" is the object of "as" and that "to"s mean roughly "which".

I wonder how you parse the part in parentheses.

 

[Piscean]

I'm losing the will to continue with this.

You've outlasted me by a couple of threads. Respect!

 

[Tarheel]

I am totally confused. The sentence in question is not confusing, but why are we taking it apart, and how did "to" come to mean "which"?

 

[Piscean]

how did "to" come to mean "which"?

Despite all advice to the contrary, GL continues to try to discover if one preposition/particle 'means' another.

 

[GoldfishLord]

Despite all advice to the contrary, GL continues to try to discover if one preposition/particle 'means' another.

No, I don't.
There is almost no one word that is exactly the same in meaning as another.
However, one word could be similar in meaning to another.

 

[Piscean]

However, one word could be similar in meaning to another.

The problem with that idea is that many of the 'little' words in English, the prepositions and particles have in themselves no ''meaning.

On the contrary for example, is used introduce a statement that says the opposite of the last one (definition). The word on means nothing in itself -it functions as part of a three-word expression.

jutfrank has done his best in this thread to explain how to is used in your sentence. jutfrank chooses his words carefully. Try to understand those words rather than offering alternatives.

 

[jutfrank]

Is "to" "in order to"?

I don't know to make sense of this. Are you asking whether 'to' can be replaced with 'in order to'? Or are you asking whether there is any way that 'to' and 'in order to' cross over in meaning?

It would seem that your previous explanation doesn't fit if "to"s are infinitives of purpose

I don't know what you expect me to say to this. How can I see what's going on in your mind? You have to be more specific about which particular part of a sentence you don't understand. I asked you twice but you didn't answer me.

Thanks for your patience.

And thank you for testing it. I'll try one last approach.

It seems to me that "a noun to mean “a noisy dispute” and a verb to mean “to noisily argue.”" is the object of "as" and that "to"s mean roughly "which".

I'm going to guess what you might be talking about. Look, here's an approximate paraphrase of the relevant part of the sentence, in different grammar:

(we are interested in) its sense as a noun, meaning 'a noisy dispute'

 

[GoldfishLord]

I understand it.