E-lex in the light of language

Admittedly, it remains unclear whether e-lex is, per se, in the realm of science or that of technology. A lexicographic "app" for Android, for instance: it is e-lex, but is it not a technological product? Or is it a scientific project? It is beyond doubt that e-lex is found in the domain of language, so this is the environment that is going to be explored here. Hopefully, once in this peculiar setting of language, we may throw the anchor of e-lex (or indeed of a-lex or of lexicography as a whole) so as to unearth a map pointing the way to the treasure chest containing the key to the question regarding the situation of e-lex in respect to science and technology, something that may be tackled in the course of subsequent investigations.
Language... Where else to start if not at its very origin? Rather than going all the way back to the Big Bang, it seems common sense that 21st century human beings are the consequence of a long evolution that dates back to their (Homo sapiens) now extinct ancestors. Here is an excellent starting point to understand language diachronically. Here was indeed an excellent starting point, albeit for an unusual circumstance. An unpretentious stumble upon I Think I Am a Verb (Sebeok 1986) led to finding, in the second chapter, an interesting rebuttal to the above all too intuitive consideration about the origin of language. This induced us to switch from leisure to work and to pay careful attention to a bit of all that Thomas Albert Sebeok wrote about language and its origin.
John Deely said, in "Semiotic entanglement", that Thomas Sebeok was the very first thinker to have thoroughly established that linguistic communication only takes place in the realm of human experience, most notably in the territory of meaning-making and meaning-understanding human activities (Deely 2014: 24n20). Because our proposal consists of nothing but groping the grounds of language in a quest to find fertile soil for framing e-lex in a scientific/technological perspective, there is no point in not investing time reading Sebeok, for it will hopefully enable an understanding of the uniquely human element of e-lex, an activity that readily emerges as intimately bound up with verbal language.
To seek the origin of language in the communication systems of ancestral species is to rely on a claptrap that already has prompted "naive efforts" within the scientific community. These efforts have even entailed plans to obtain public funding to investigate alleged "language-like propensities in a few enslaved primates by claiming that they [the authors of the "naive efforts"] are thereby about to uncover the roots of language" (Sebeok 1986, 12-3). Sebeok also finds it nonsensical that the human "verbal code" is thought to be an "evolutionary continuum with the multifold and diversiform nonverbal codes of the extict hominoids, presumed to be still embodied in the extant great apes." It seems that those who, throughout the course of recent centuries, have put forth research proposals on the origin of language in the sense alluded to above have, because of the highly speculative nature of such proposals, not been greeted with much sympathy by the majority of peers.
Verbal language is, therefore, human in origin, and so the birthplace of lexicography in a broad sense is humanity, for even if a dictionary of dinosaur grunts were to be produced, it would be produced by humans and for humans, or it would not be a dictionary at all, nor would humans be able to benefit from such a dino‑lexicographic heritage. To better appreciate the question of the humanity/language relationship as posed by Sebeok, it can be noted that dogs have four legs, but when a dog is born with three legs or loses one (or is not able to use one) we do not claim that dogs do not have (or cannot use) four legs any longer, but that the three-legged dog is the unique or a rare exception. Nonverbal language is not something that only humans possess, but only humans express themselves in verbal language (or in terms of "grammar", as referred to in Ibid, 13), which does not mean that all humans use the latter generously (or at all, in the event of pathology).
When it comes to the understanding or technological developments for the understanding of English (to give just one example) it is a matter of what is proper only to human animals, which is verbal language. Anyone looking to find breeding ground for framing e-lex at the science/technology crossroads may well not be disappointed if he/she embarks on the journey with the confidence that he/she is navigating the seas of a "species-specific trait of Homo sapiens," which is grammar or linguistic communication, and is thus in the field of the digital arts and humanities, which are themselves part of the world of e- or digital sciences. However, e-lex is not solely concerned with disinterested scientific research, which is why the question is raised about the situation of e-lex in relation to the field of technology. This last issue also deserves to be faced with a firm conviction, namely that there is no disgrace for e-lex in bearing the label of an existence partially aimed at satisfying the most immediate human needs, something that is more akin to technology.
How come there is no disgrace in it? Because, after all, e-lexicographic technological innovation is actually called for in order for humans to deal with the challenges posed by verbal language, which itself may be understood as a machine or device that seems strange or unnecessarily complicated, and often poorly designed or even dangerous, as Thomas Sebeok suggests (Ibid., 16). Verbal language was itself developed by humans who could already communicate in non-verbal ways but who managed to devise adequate means to respond to communicational needs. The future is thus challenged: speaking of e-lex is to speak of science, of technology, or of something in-between?