It could be that it's conjugations are computer-generated, and what would a computer know about it? — Bitter Crank

That would be it. Someone needs to refine the algorithm. The answer to the perpetual question "'To can', or not 'to can'...?" is most definitely not 'to can'.

So, in the Old English (and other) sources, cunnan from which "can" is derived, would have had an infinitive form. — Bitter Crank

Fair enough, but Old English is hardly less different to modern English than modern English is to Dutch. Anyway if you need an infinitive, just use "to be able to", and don't say modern English doesn't cover its bases!

It's exceptionally stupid (as if it proves anything beyond the abysmal level of his supporters' political intellect), but I don't see fascism in it.

(I've just noticed Marchesk's discussion on "conceptual schemes" now...)

This is not something we can conceptualize. If it were, we would be already doing so; so the effort to find a new question word related to it would be pointless. We'd have one. Right? Within our conceptual scheme, "new" question words would be as superficial as translations from other languages.

The infinitive of 'can' is 'to can'. Outside of food preservation, I've never come across "to can" until a few minutes ago in a dictionary entry. — Bitter Crank

The "to can" refers only to the food preservation sense. There is no "to can" in the other sense as it's a modal auxiliary. It doesn't have a non-finite form, i.e no "to can", no "canning" etc.

Leaving aside the self-flagellating irony of your Palestinan friend's comment for the moment, does the dicator have to be bloodthirsty? Are bloodless coups and "benign" dictatorships ruled out? I'm thinking here of the example of Thailand where the establishment of a military junta halted a conflict that was spiraling out of control and in the process almost certainly saved lives.

How to get the bull out of the grammar china shop? ;)

Just a couple of points. You haven't covered all possible question words / phrases nor all types of question. "How many" and "how much", for example, differ from "how" in calling for number and amount rather than a way of doing things (note that although functionally a "what" could do the trick here, so could it for "where" (what place), which (what one), and who (what person); in each case a thing represented by a noun phrase is called for - and knowing this leads us towards the more sensible categorizations of functional grammars). As for types of question, you've left out the category of yes / no questions entirely. This is where the confusion about auxiliaries comes in. They're used in yes / no questions (along with tag and alternative questions). (Oh, and "could" is past use of "can" but only when you are talking of ability, not possibility or permission).

Anyway it doesn't make any sense to go looking for new question words. That would mean looking for new functions. As if we don't have it covered. Language is always complete in its context. It doesn't need any help.

Traditional grammar won't help you much with this. Check out a functional grammar like Halliday's SFL. It puts this kind of stuff in context.

Nice!

Humans are more interested in stories than either philosophy or debating.

Tractatus 6.43: "If good or bad willing changes the world, it can only change the limits of the world, not the facts; not the things that can be expressed in language.

In brief, the world must thereby become quite another. It must so to speak wax or wane as a whole.

The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man"

It was a take on a Wittgenstein quote "The world of the happy..." etc. I'm on the normal emotional range bus and intend to enjoy the ride.

The bus of the happy man is a different one from the bus of the unhappy man.

Yes, but then it won't happen and we'll keep the money anyway. ;) Anyone can of course nominate someone to be moderator at any time by sending a PM to one of the staff with reasons for their choice. We don't have a vacancy at the moment, but we'll take that into consideration the next time we do.

Creating conscious agents with testosterone and then falling back on free will is like giving toddlers hand guns and then falling back on the constitution.

Yes, or even testosterone and so on.

Don't worry about the currency. It's all good.

I doubt it's strictly the biological definition, though — Marchesk

Ok, but you still haven't presented any evidence backing up your thoughts and doubts. I at least quoted "Rational Wiki". As I said, if you can find a definition of biological evolution from a reliable scientific source that excludes artificial processes as causative, I would love to see it.

'Intelligent design' is a religiously inspired pseudoscience. It doesn't figure in the debate raised in the OP. If conscious agents cause changes in a gene pool (which are passed on) they are causing evolution.

Pretty much, and it can happen by 'natural' means including natural selection and lots of other stuff and various 'artificial' means. It's all equally evolution.

(I didn't btw claim mechanisms aren't an important part of science or anything remotely close to that. I was talking about the adjective 'biological' in the phrase 'biological evolution' - just like before).

We could go on like this forever. If you find any evidence to suggest anything I've said is inaccurate or misrepresents the scientific view, let me know.

You're conflating the 'what' and 'how' again. Anyway, what I've been saying is straightforward scientific orthodoxy. 'Biological' is about the 'what' not the 'how' .

Scientists use the term to distinguish the evolution of organisms from other stuff. That's the 'what'. The 'how' is up for grabs as has already been explained.

The term "biological" might be misleading you. It refers to the what not the how.

Cancer and the like is not evolution. Evolution results in heritable changes in a gene pool.

I might as well add that it's heritable change obviously in biological evolution.

See SX's post above.

Although, I have to wonder if bringing species back from extinction is actually evolution under that definition? — Marchesk

It would just depend on whether changes were made to the genes in the process. If cats die out and we bring them back as they were, they wouldn't have evolved.

"Artificial selection is an artificial mechanism by which evolution can occur."

Rational Wiki

It's one mechanism. Don't get hung up on the "natural" idea.

Many thanks for the donation and the suggestion, jkop.

So? Nature probably couldn't have made a Chihuahua without us either.

Sure, human activity including technological activity could be a mechanism of evolution. Why not? Artificial selection is.

Evolution is defined by heritable changes in the gene pool from generation to generation. Doesn't matter how they get there. Genes come and go. That's it.

... that is not necessarily the best adaption to our environment? — Javants

Just to add to what @StreetlightX said, evolution doesn't primarily "care" what the best adaptation to an environment is. Any gene that offers a competitive advantage will spread through the gene pool (all other things being equal) even if this perversely leads to maladaptation. Consider a population of birds who hatch their eggs at an optimal time of year with regard to availability of food. Now consider a gene that causes an individual bird to hatch earlier. That bird's young may eat more due to lack of competition for food from other hatchlings thus increasing fitness thus spreading the gene for the suboptimal hatching date around etc. In this way species can adapt themselves away from optimal environments. Once you've accepted that principle, there's no real problem to solve.

It's all in the above. If you still don't see why your cherry-picked example can't be generalised to render only one half of the dichotomy incoherent (and herein lies your claimed asymmetry) then all I can suggest is you consider a few more examples.

Sure, in practice, it won't necessarily matter much but the approaches have very different philosophical bases.

where and how do we draw the line? — mew

You observe what others call games and you call those types of things games too. There is no absolute "line". More a fuzzy boundary constrained by use.

God created man in his own image and so on. But I'm less interested in the theology than the psychology here.

In other words, what's sauce for the omnibenevolent goose is sauce for the omnimalevolent gander.