Syntax - Tumblr Posts

anyway syntax lovers put ur hands up

reasons to love syntax: a thread(??)

he is the best Ever.

thank you for coming to my ted talk <33

i am a completely normal and mentally well individual *rewatches sleep bug for the 485729th time*

Hey so I found this in my Syntax book that I bought used from the SIU bookstore. The name is either hawberries or havberries. I love it btw, it’s amazing and I think it’s Angus from TAZ but it’s not mine. Someone bought this or made this and I have no way of knowing who forgot this in their book. Help me out!

hehe spider boi

Biblical Greek Exegesis: A Critique of Underhanded Methods

By Author Eli Kittim

The reason I’m posting a brief excerpt of my recent exchange with Mr. Marcelo Souza, an apparent priest and member of the *Koine Greek Study Group* on Facebook, is to respond to his libel in order to show that he was guilty of mishandling and misrepresenting my position. In fact, he touted himself as being a grammatical pundit, but in a rather dishonest manner he never actually gave the readers a satisfactory and robust *answer* to the Original Post’s (OP) question, but only pretended to do so using a red herring fallacy.

Here’s how it all began . . .

——-

Koine Greek Study Group *OP*

The OP was posted by Joe Hawley:

Have a question for all of you here. In

Matthew 28:1, the Greek word for "sabbath"

is pluralized, but it is translated singular in

every translation I can find. The one

exception I have found is with an old

interlinear I have around the house. Even

A.T. Robertson's commentary set on the

Greek text failed to say anything about it. I

am stumped. Any ideas? Thank you.

Joe’s basic dilemma is that although the Greek word for “Sabbath” (σαββάτων) is pluralized, nevertheless it’s translated in singular form in almost every translation he can find. So, he’s wondering, why is that so? Excellent question!

The OP reference is to the Greek text of Mt. 28.1:

Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.

Translation (NRSV):

“After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.”

This, then, is the text under investigation. I will now post the most important comments that fellow discussants made on this thread.

——-

Eric S Weiss (commenter)

ICC on Matthew:

καὶ ἐὰν ἐμπέσῃ τοῦτο τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς βόθυνον. Compare 15:14 (εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται) and Lk 14:5 (εἰς φρέαρ πεσεῖται). The plural, ‘sabbaths’, is to be accounted for by the Aramaic šabbětā˒, which is an emphatic singular.

Joe Hawley (the Original Poster) replied:

Not sure if I follow you. ... Not sure how the Aramaic figures in with this. Thank you for your response.

Marcelo Souza:

Joe Hawley it’s just usage. Remember Sabbath is a Hebrew word that comes into Greek (and other languages) transliterated. When that happens, it often acquires its own usage.

[what does that have to do with Greek syntax?]

Even the LXX already used Σαββάτων for a Sabbath, e.g., Num. 15:32

[Not so. That’s a form of underhanded exegesis. In the Greek LXX, it is plural (σαββάτων). It is only the English LXX translation that renders it Sabbath due to dynamic equivalence translations that will be discussed later. What is more, Souza doesn’t even give us the grammatical rule for the LXX’s usage]

32 Καὶ ἦσαν οἱ υἱοὶ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ εὗρον ἄνδρα συλλέγοντα ξύλα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων

Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.

‎וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּמִּדְבָּר; וַיִּמְצְאוּ, אִישׁ מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים--בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת.

(B’yom ha shabat)

——-

Let’s pause the conversation for a second for some well-needed commentary. Based on his post, Marcelo Souza seems ignorant of Greek syntax, as he attributes the translation of Sabbath in the singular simply to a Hebrew usage. He completely ignores Greek grammar by appealing to Hebrew to make his case, even posting Num. 15.32 in Hebrew. Good grief! That’s why Souza’s use of the *English* version of Num. 15.32 LXX τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων as the syntactical basis of the singular form in Mt. 28.1 is erroneous. Why? Because unlike Mt. 28.1, Num. 15.32 LXX employs the genitive plural article τῶν (i.e. τῶν σαββάτων), which should be translated as “of the Sabbaths” (plural), whereas Mt.28.1 has the conjunction δὲ σαββάτων instead. So, the LXX-NT comparison is unwarranted, not only because of the *different words* that precede the term “Sabbath” in both texts but also because Souza is not using the original Greek LXX but rather its English translation. That’s arguing in a circle. In other words, instead of comparing the Greek NT against the Greek LXX, he’s comparing the Greek NT against English translations of the Greek LXX. For example, he doesn’t mention the genitive plural article τῶν, which turns σαββάτων into plural, in the Greek LXX but rather the fact that the English translations of the LXX render it in the singular as “Sabbath.” His entire eisegesis is a sham! It’s like mixing apples and oranges. Besides, he never even gave us the grammatical rule why the Septuagint translates τῶν σαββάτων in the plural form or how that is related to the singular form in Mt. 28.1. Instead, he leaves us guessing as to why that is so by pretending to have answered it.

In fact, throughout the entire thread, none of the discussants gave a sufficient grammatical reason why the pluralized Greek word for “sabbath” is nevertheless translated in the singular and not in the plural form in Mt. 28.1. As you will see, I’m the only one who did that. Weiss tried to answer the question by saying that it is due to the Aramaic šabbětā, which is irrelevant because he’s trying to argue Greek syntax from a foreign language, even if it does involve a transliteration. And then Souza followed suit and tried to do the same by way of a dubious attribution to the Hebrew usage (as a transliteration). However, whether the term “Sabbath” was originally a Hebrew word or not is completely irrelevant to the OP’s discussion. It’s the Greek syntax that’s all-important. The Hebraic etymology is irrelevant as to whether “Sabbath” is in singular or plural form in the Greek. So, the notion of using Hebrew etymology to understand and even justify Greek syntax is a fallacy; it’s completely bogus and misinformed!

I suspect this is probably due to the fact that Marcelo Souza is not a native Greek speaker and doesn’t seem to understand the grammatical depths, nuances, and complexities of the Greek language. This was exemplified later in the conversation by his sleight of hand performance in which he maintained that he conclusively answered the OP, when in fact he didn’t. He even pats himself on the back as if having been congratulated by the inquirer. It reminds me of Americans who study NT Greek for a few years at a Seminary and then become haughty and conceited, deluding themselves that they really understand Koine Greek in all its sophistication, when in fact all they have learned is a few basic rules of grammar, at best. They can’t even order a glass of wine in a Greek restaurant. And just as their pretentious western Erasmian pronunciation is fake and invalid, so are most of their grammatical and syntactic evaluations.

——-

I’m the only one who actually posted the correct answer to the OP, arguing from the Greek, not from Aramaic or Hebrew, as Weiss and, especially, Souza erroneously did. And I explicitly mentioned that to Souza. In reference to the Greek text in Mt. 28.1, I wrote:

“In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author [Matthew] does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.”

Bingo! That’s the correct answer!

——-

Back to the Conversation . . .

This is how the Debate Began Between Me and Marcelo Souza

After a few discussants posted their commentaries on this particular post in the Koine Greek Study Group, I made a comment that “the term σαββάτων in Mt. 28.1 is Not Plural [i.e. it’s not translated in the plural]; it’s a Declension.” And I interpreted Souza’s under-mentioned reply to mean that σαββάτων (being a genitive plural) BY ITSELF can answer the OP’s question. Thus began our heated exchange. . .

Marcelo Souza:

The word is a genitive plural [he seems to imply that this is the answer to the OP. Otherwise why mention such an obvious fact?].

Eli Kittim:

No it isn’t [meaning, the answer to the OP]. That’s a mistranslation [meaning, you can’t use the genitive plural form ALONE as the basis for translation].

[When I replied “no it isn’t,” it was a shorthand for saying that the genitive plural FORM of the noun σαββάτων BY ITSELF (in and of itself) is NOT the *REASON* why it’s translated in singular rather than in plural form in Mt. 28.1. Rather, it is because it lacks the genitive plural *article* τῶν! In other words, the presence or absence of the preceding article τῶν determines whether σαββάτων should be translated as singular or plural, not on the basis of its genitive plural form alone, or on the Hebraic grounds that Souza suggested earlier. And this is correct. As I explicitly stated later, I obviously did not deny that σαββάτων per se is a genitive plural. How could I? That would be patently ridiculous. That’s where the miscommunication began. And based on his misunderstanding of what I meant, he concocted a whole smearing campaign, slandering me and accusing me of being ignorant of Greek syntax, and its relation to translation, and hurling derogatory and condescending comments and insults].

——-

The exchange continued as follows . . .

Marcelo Souza:

Eli Kittim I think you’re confused as to what grammar is. It’s a genitive plural and that’s not a matter of translation. So you are incorrect . . .

[It is a matter of translation because translation closely follows the grammar & syntax of the original language].

Eli Kittim:

In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.

Marcelo Souza:

We even gave an example from the LXX, with the corresponding Hebrew.

So maybe you don't know the difference between syntax and translation [there go the insults], and you don't know what a genitive plural is [more insults . . . ] and you think that if one says it's a genitive plural, it needs to be translated in the plural [talk about presumption].

He went on to say:

So you deny it's a genitive plural because you don't know what that is . . .

Eli Kittim (my response):

Marcelo Souza It’s a miscommunication. You’re completely misrepresenting me with misperceived ideas of what you think I meant or what you assume I know, etc. . . . I NEVER DENIED THAT σαββάτων PER SE IS A GENITIVE PLURAL [emphasis added]. . . . I was referring to the fact that there is no genitive plural article τῶν before or prior to the word, and why the term would not normally be translated in the plural as Sabbaths. Incidentally, your deviation into Hebrew is completely irrelevant in this particular case because Matthew is writing in New Testament Greek, not translating Hebrew into Greek.

Our exchange ended shortly thereafter. . .

——-

Biblical Greek Exegesis: How dynamic equivalence has corrupted the translation of the expression τῶν σαββάτων in the New Testament

The dynamic (thought for thought) method of translation translates the idiomatic expression τῶν σαββάτων in singular form. But that is not a faithful translation. By contrast, literal translations (i.e. formal equivalence) render it as “of the weeks” or “of the Sabbaths.” For example, Mark 16.2 τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων should read “on the first day of the weeks” (cf. A Faithful Version [formal equivalence]) or “in the morning of the first of the sabbaths” (YLT [formal equivalence]).

Notice that in Mark 16.2 the phrase τῶν σαββάτων is preceded by the dative singular adjective μιᾷ (first). The parsing in Mark 16.2 is as follows:

τῇ (on the) Article - dative singular

μιᾷ (first) Adjective - dative singular

τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural

σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural

In other words, the action occurs during one of the Sabbaths or on the first day of the Sabbaths. Why is “Sabbaths” plural and not singular (in translation)? Because it is preceded by the genitive plural article τῶν. Had it been preceded by the genitive singular article τοῦ, then “Sabbath” would have been translated in singular form. That is the raison d'être for the expression’s singular form in the Mt. 28.1 translation. And that is the correct answer to the Original Post! In other words, the translation of “sabbath” in singular form obviously has nothing to do with the genitive plural form of σαββάτων PER SE or with its attribute as a Greek transliteration of Hebrew, as Souza erroneously suggests.

Similarly, in Luke 4.16, the expression ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων should be translated “on the day of the Sabbaths” (Berean Literal Bible [word for word translation]). The parsing of Luke 4.16 is thusly:

ἐν (on) Preposition

τῇ (the) Article - Dative Singular

ἡμέρᾳ (day) Noun - Dative Singular

τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural

σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural

Acts 13.14 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων is a similar case that corroborates the aforementioned exegesis. Thus, in these cases, the most faithful translation seems to be “on the day of the Sabbaths.” The genitive plural article τῶν cannot be used to refer to a single Sabbath. That would have been the case if it were the genitive singular article τοῦ (i.e. τοῦ σαββάτου)!

(see e.g. the following concordance https://biblehub.com/greek/sabbatou_4521.htm).

——-

Is 1 John 5:20 Indicating a Past Event?

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim 🇬🇷 🇺🇸

Inaccurate Bible Translations

It appears that most English translations of 1 John 5:20 say that the Son of God “has come” or “is come” when referring to Jesus Christ. Specifically, they say “that the Son of God has come” (see e.g. NIV, NLT, ESV, BSB, NKJV, NASB, CSB, HCSB, GNT, ISV, LSV, NAB, NET Bible, NRSV, NHEB, WNT, WEB). The rest of the Bible versions use the variant “is come,” which is an archaic form of English. This construction employs the term “come” as an unaccusative intransitive verb. Essentially, to say “that the Son of God is come” (e.g. BLB, KJV, ASV, DRB, YLT) not only implies the state of “having come” but also of “now being here” as well. The meaning of this construction is that “the Son of God” didn't simply come but that he is here right now! As you will see, the “is come” construction is actually closer to the original Greek text than “has come.” The worst Bible version is the AMP which makes explicit and ambitious statements that the Greek text does not make, while also adding foreign elements that are not found in the original. It’s the least faithful English translation. It reads:

And we [have seen and] know [by personal

experience] that the Son of God has

[actually] come [to this world].

Grammatical Parsing & Concordance Studies

In 1 John 5:20, the key word in this sentence is the Greek verb ἥκει (hēkei), which is a present indicative active, 3rd person singular (Strong's 2240: meaning, “to be present”). The term ἥκει is derived from the verb ἥκω, which can mean “to come,” “I am present,” “to be present,” or “will come” (see https://biblehub.com/greek/2240.htm).

As a present active indicative verb, ἥκει describes a linear (ongoing) action, as opposed to a punctiliar (complete) action. Thus, ἥκει as a primary tense expresses the present & future times, whereas secondary or historical tenses (aorist, imperfect, pluperfect) express past time. So, present active indicative verbs show that the action happens in the present time. Therefore, the verb ἥκει, in 1 John 5:20, should be understood in the sense of an “ongoing present” action (in a transhistorical sense), otherwise the translation is not entirely accurate but rather misleading for the reader. Moreover, the fact that ἥκει describes an ongoing action in the *present tense* indicates that it should not be read as referring to an event that transpired in the past, during the writing of this letter, but rather to all generations of readers, that is to say, in the temporal context that they find themselves in. In other words, the term ἥκει in 1 John 5:20 should be equally read in the *present tense* whether a person is living in the Middle Ages or in the 21st century. It should not be understood as a completed event that took place in the past.

In cross-reference studies, e.g. in Luke 15:27, notice that ἥκει is translated as “is here” (now)! See the Christian Standard Bible & Holman Christian Standard Bible translations:

Your brother is here, he told him, and your

father has slaughtered the fattened calf

because he has him back safe and sound.

And in John 2:4 ἥκει is rendered as referring to the future: “My hour has not yet come” (οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου).

English Standard Version:

And Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what does

this have to do with me? My hour has not

yet come.’

Conclusion

As you can see, the translation “has come”——which gives the false impression of an event that happened and was completed in the past——is obviously misleading and not faithful to the original Greek text!

The more I research the Bible, the more evidence I find of corruptions and mistranslations. Similar to the way in which almost all translations of Acts 1:11 wrongly render the Greek term ἐλεύσεται as “come back,” most translations of ἥκει in 1 John 5:20 wrongly render it as “has come.” That’s why I parsed it for you. So that we can analyze the sentence into its various components and thereby define their syntactic roles.

Another key word in 1 John 5:20 is δέδωκεν (dedōken), which is a verb, perfect indicative active, 3rd person singular. It comes from δίδωμι, which means “give.” So, all in all, when you consider the intricate workings of this sentence you will have a better appreciation of the fact that the present active indicative verb ἥκει describes a linear (ongoing) action, as opposed to a punctiliar (complete) action. Here, then, is my rendition of 1 John 5:20 (SBLGNT):

οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει, καὶ

δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν

ἀληθινόν· καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ

υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ

ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.

Eli Kittim translation (Formal equivalence):

We know, then, that the son of God comes

and gives to us intelligence so that we

might know the true——and we are in the

true, [if we are] in his son——Jesus Christ.

This is the true God and life eternal.

—

I SAW YOUR REQUESTS BEING REOPENED! First of all, how are you? Second of all, if it isn’t taken. I’ll be going by as 🎲 Anon. 🤭 Otherwise, reading your other works as really made me comforted and gain motivation. I’m truly inspired by your writing. Otherwise, may I request Headcanons or Scenarios of the following characters: Red Son, Mayor, Syntax and Macaque for confessing to their crush?

First of all, I'm well! Thank you for asking!

Second of all, no specific anons are taken other than snake anon, so I dub thee dice anon!

Third, I'm so glad my writing has inspired you!! Pop off!!!

Enjoy ☺️ I may or may not have cried and swooned while I wrote these

Redson, Mayor, Syntax, and Macaque Confession Headcanons!

Redson - it’s so elaborate and dramatic. They most definitely take you out for a meal first, then after that, they drive you to a special place—probably where you two met or something—and they show you this whole setup with flowers, candles, the whole shebang in order to make it all perfect. It’s like straight out of an anime. They tell you that the past few months are some of the best months of their life. That you’ve really been so kind to them, that you’re one of the only people they can truly tolerate for long periods of time and they appreciate you…and would you like to date them?

Mayor - not as elaborate as Redson, but still very romantic. He’s old fashioned in and out, so he probably takes you to dinner and then to the park so you two can see the sunset. Then he’ll take one of your hands and say he wants to tell you something. That he knows he’s not super perfect or anything, but he’s really happy when he’s with you, and he feels genuinely alive when he’s with you. The man’s a zombie, but he’s doing his best for everyone and his city. But he wants to be with you. Do you want to be with him, too?

Syntax - he’s pretty limited in how he would do it. He thinks he’s really only got one chance, since hey, he’s not exactly the perfect boyfriend material. I could see him doing a video and sending it to you so that way he doesn’t have to say anything face to face, since he’s pretty emotionally reserved. He admits to you that he’s really book smart, he can do calculations in his sleep, but love isn’t something he’s well-versed in. And yet, he’s 100% sure it’s what he’s feeling when he’s around you. Give him a call if you…wanna go out, or something…(awkward spider noises)

Macaque - drama king, coming through. This man waits for the perfect chance, and to him, it’s: going out in the rain with you, dancing, getting up to your usual playful banter, and then stopping to catch your breaths. He probably brushes your hair out of your face. Then he tells you that he’s not that much of a people person, that he trusts so slowly these days that he doesn’t feel like he can keep good relationships with a lot of people. But you…you’re so endlessly patient and kind with him. He understands if you don't feel the same, but would you like to give him a chance? Just this once?

can we get a syntax x reader who likes cuddles sm :D

Syntax x GN!Cuddly!Reader Headcanons!

I don't think this man has had any proper affection since he became a spider, so he doesn't know how to handle your cuddlyness at first

He likes the idea but he has no clue how to do it

You just sort of place him on the couch, grab a blanket or two, and make yourself comfy around him. And it works!

He has never relaxed so easily in his LIFE. and now he's hooked

He won't verbally express that he likes it or that he wants to cuddle with you, however you'll be able to tell pretty easily

He makes himself as physically close to you as possible, makes sure you KNOW he's there.....

and then disappears to wait on the nearest cuddling surface.

Mostly the couch, but he's very content to maneuver with you on his office chair.

Loves resting his chin on top of your head and listening to you ramble. He's attentive, even if he's working on something else at the same time

Overall, 9/10 just because I think he'd get too comfortable and be hesitant to let you just get up whenever you want lol

LGBTQ+ Headcanons (LMK)

Please remember that these are only headcanons, if you disagree with me then that's all chill.

MK: Trans, also bisexual. I'll admit, I don't normally headcanon characters as trans unless the narrative is trans coded, but there's a rather particular line that caused this headcanon. When the spider queen's minions would call him 'Monkey boy' he'd shot back that he's a "monkey man" which seemed odd to me as he doesn't seem to be the type to be insecure about his masculinity and with him declaring himself as the "monkey kid" he certainly isn't insecure about being seen as a kid. The only thing that made sense for why he'd do that was that he just likes to randomly declare himself as a man, which just seems like a very trans thing to do.

Pigsy: Bi, no known preference.

Tang: Gay.

Sandy: AroAce spec. He can feel both romantic and sexual attraction, but he needs to get to know them properly first.

Mei: Bi, with a preference towards men.

Monkey King: Pan.

Macaque: Pan.

Red Son: Bi, with a preference towards men.

DBK: Straight.

Princess Iron Fan: Straight.

Spider Queen: Bi, no known preference.

Syntax: Gay asexual.

Huntsman: He's honestly just into someone being able to kill him if needed, lol.

Ne Zha: AroAce.

Lady Bone Demon: AroAce.

The "mayor": I don't know what the fuck he his but he ain't straight.

Azure: Pan.

Peng: No clue, but he ain't straight.

Yellow tusk: Gay.

What if Syntax collected a sample of the spider venom cure.

Look I spent way to long today wasting time creating nothing of value, getting dehydrated and not eating for 8 hrs …. Note to self take breaks when drawing on a screen.

But I have the thought of what if he did have the cure but was conflicted on whether or not he should take it I mean he was working for the spider Queen. Maybe even though he was super smart he felt unchallenged in his old life, or he was seen as a crazy inventor.

It led to him working for her and being turned by force, but is it all that bad, heck maybe he has no memories of his old life but every time he see that glowing liquid he almost compelled to use it. Yet he has grown attached to this strange group he now calls family

🤩😍🤩 omg I love it. So cute ❤️

💜💚💙

A Golden Secret

Revamp of an old idea, of syntax keeping a sample of the golden cure.

But this time he is guarding his secret well

A Golden Secret

Revamp of an old idea, of syntax keeping a sample of the golden cure.

But this time he is guarding his secret well

LMK fanart!)

And also my OC (Ma)!

Here's a little joke courtesy of www.1stwebdesigner.com , found it to be real accurate about all the spying and copycats that make up tech space.

I continue to not believe that syntax is real. It simply makes no sense. I might be too stupid for this, but my professor will spend an hour explaining how something works and then spend the next hour explaining why it doesn't actually work.

This man is everywhere. This is a syntax textbook.

And I checked, it's defo him, because when the Challenger blew he demonstrated how it was a frozen O-ring that caused the problem.

(o-rings aren't magic, literally a ring/band of rubber)

SYNTAX x READER

Content: Fluff (i think)

Posted from my AO3 account to here

Enjoy :>

———————————————————————

It was not a good day, to say the least.

You had set your drink down on a bed of notes by mistake, so now there’s a ring of water decorating those rather important papers, your sparring match with Huntsman left you feeling more sore than usual, and your mood just wasn’t that great to begin with.

So now you’re stuck in Syntax’s room, having been sent to work on some printed circuit board assemblies with him. Not that that was bad, most of the time you loved working with someone who could match your intellect with computer and other electronic hardware.

It’s just for some reason you coudn’t get this stubborn LED to work properly.

Which was strange, to say the least. As this had never happened before, you struggling this badly over something so utterly simple. It was frustrating to you, so much so that the pen in your hand you were using for schematics was now brutality making contact with the table.

The pen nib was practically destroyed, but you kept going, finding a strange satisfaction in how it cracked under the pressure. But rather quickly Syntax notices this, looking over at you from his seat with an expression of slight concern and something akin to amusement.

“You’re lucky I didn’t like that pen.” He muses, getting up from his seat to walk over to you. His movements are swift and confident, like always, but you can already feel the snarky remark or joke coming any second now.

After a moment or two, you finally respond.

“Yeah, I really don’t like it either.”

He hums in acknowledgement, seemingly thinking about something. He can practically feel your bad temper right now, and he knows you’re rather fond of jokes. So he decides to take a small risk, doing something he’d normally never even think about, but to be fair, he’s also curious as to what your reaction could be if he finally says something other than a smug remark.

“You know, I just have to say… think of that poor pen’s feelings, hm? How would you feel if I banged you on the table like that?” A little smirk forms on his face, and he leans against your work station, supporting himself with a hand.

Your eyes widen slightly, and then a grin slowly begins to cover your face. “Do you want the ‘appropriate’ answer, or the ‘down horrendous’ answer?”

Now it’s his turn to stammer, seemingly caught off guard. Syntax had expected nothing short of a ‘shut up’ to his comment, so when you said that, it left him stumbling to calculate a response. You take notice of his current embarrassed expression, deciding to have a bit of fun with this now.

“Oh, c’mon. You really walked into that one. For someone so intelligent, I would’ve figured you’d have realized the double meaning there,” You lean back in your swivel chair, lightly tossing the broken pen onto the surface of the workstation.

He just huffs, picking himself and his dignity off of the metaphorical ground.

“Well, I didn’t know I was speaking with someone whose mind occupies the entire gutter!”

“You gotta admit, that was funny,” You laugh, smiling like a fool at his reaction. He’s not genuinely mad, you can tell, but it’s still very silly.

Syntax just sighs, rolling his eyes and feigning annoyance. “You’re lucky you’re decent with hardware, otherwise I would’ve kicked you out of here already.”

This time around, he’s more careful as to not say anything that could be turned into a sexual joke. It’s not like he doesn’t enjoy it, but it’s more interesting for the both of them if he puts up a fight. But you do glance over at the ridiculously stubborn LED from earlier, feeling a little bit down again with how you weren’t able to get it to function correctly.

Before you respond to the technician, your hands find themselves moving with a new idea. The LED is replaced with a newer red one, after turning off the power to the prototyping breadboard of course. Then you switch the button back on.

It begins emitting light, like the other one was supposed to do.

You celebrate for a split second before turning back to Syntax, a pleased expression on your face. The original light is between your thumb and index finger now, and then you place it to the side.

“It appears this one is a dud, didn’t these come in yesterday though?” You ask curiously, wanting to make sure you’re remembering things right.

He hums out an answer with a nod alongside it. “Yes, but the Queen insisted we go for more… nominal resources.”

You nod as well, feeling a little bit annoyed with such actions. The cheaper the materials, the harder it will be to do things, not to mention the risk of something malfunctioning. Then if, or rather when something goes wrong, them two will be the ones taking the blame for it.

“Well, that sucks,” You mutter, looking over at the burnt out LED, then to the functioning one.

“Nothing we can do about it,” The spider demon just sits back down in his chair, beginning to clean the area.

You do the same.

Some LMK characters in my style with my OC Pebble