techhub.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A hub primarily for passionate technologists, but everyone is welcome

Administered by:

Server stats:

4.9K
active users

#syntax

5 posts5 participants0 posts today

At this years #LFG conference, I will talk about #TAG and what it shows us for the old phrasal vs. lexical discussion:

lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/009130

I think valence information has to be encoded lexically and lexical rules or empty heads or transformations should be used to derive resultative constructions or caused motion constructions. They can not be related to other constructions in inheritance networks.

Comments welcome!

lingbuzz.netTAG is not a Construction Grammar, it is a Transformational Grammar, or is it? — A comment on the nature of grammatical relations - lingbuzz/009130This paper discusses recent claims about Tree Adjoining Grammar (TAG) being suited as the formalization for phrasal Construction Grammar approaches. It is shown that inheritance as such is not a suffi - lingbuzz, the linguistics archive
Continued thread

Hmmm.... maybe @ for "pc-relative address operator"....

previous instruction: -1@
current instruction: 0@
next instruction: 1@

and so on...

Or any number of '<'s or '>'s to represent the address the instruction that many before or after...

li x3, 5
mul x5, x3, 10
stw x5, (x7)
subi x3, x3, 1
bnez x3, <<<

(I probably could have already implemented local labels in the time I've been considering this)

📘 New article: Executable Power: Syntax as Infrastructure in Predictive Societies

This piece examines how syntactic authority—devoid of subject, interpretation or narrative—can operate as a sovereign form of control.

▫️Case studies: LLMs, smart contracts, TAP
▫️Conflict with AI Act compliance and traceability

Full article (DOI): zenodo.org/records/15754714

ZenodoExecutable Power: Syntax as Infrastructure in Predictive SocietiesAbstractThis article introduces the concept of executable power as a structural form of authority that does not rely on subjects, narratives, or symbolic legitimacy, but on the direct operativity of syntactic structures. Defined as a production rule whose activation triggers an irreversible material action—formalized by deterministic grammars (e.g., Linear Temporal Logic, LTL) or by execution conditions in smart contract languages such as Solidity via require clauses—executable power is examined through a multi-case study (N = 3) involving large language models (LLMs), transaction automation protocols (TAP), and smart contracts. Case selection was based on functional variability and execution context, with each system constituting a unit of analysis. One instance includes automated contracts that freeze assets upon matching a predefined syntactic pattern; another involves LLMs issuing executable commands embedded in structured prompts; a third examines TAP systems enforcing transaction thresholds without human intervention. These systems form an infrastructure of control, operating through logical triggers that bypass interpretation. Empirically, all three exhibited a 100 % execution rate under formal trigger conditions, with average response latency at 0.63 ± 0.17 seconds and no recorded human override in controlled environments. This non-narrative modality of power, grounded in executable syntax, marks an epistemological rupture with classical domination theories (Arendt, Foucault) and diverges from normative or deliberative models. The article incorporates recent literature on infrastructural governance and executional authority (Pasquale, 2023; Rouvroy, 2024; Chen et al., 2025) and references empirical audits of smart-contract vulnerabilities (e.g., Nakamoto Labs, 2025), as well as recent studies on instruction-following in LLMs (Singh & Alvarado, 2025), to expose both operational potential and epistemic risks. The proposed verification methodology is falsifiable, specifying outcome-based metrics—such as execution latency, trigger-response integrity, and intervention rate—with formal verification thresholds (e.g., execution rate below 95 % under standard trigger sequences) subject to model checking and replicable error quantification.  DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15754714 This work is also published with DOI reference in Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29424524 and Pending SSRN ID to be assigned. ETA: Q3 2025. ResumenEste artículo introduce el concepto de poder ejecutable como una forma estructural de autoridad que no depende de sujetos, narrativas ni legitimidad simbólica, sino de la operatividad directa de estructuras sintácticas. Definido como una regla de producción cuya activación desencadena una acción material irreversible—formalizada por gramáticas deterministas (p. ej., Lógica Temporal Lineal, LTL) o por condiciones de ejecución en lenguajes de contrato inteligente como Solidity mediante cláusulas require—, el poder ejecutable se analiza mediante un estudio de casos múltiples (N = 3) que involucra modelos de lenguaje de gran escala (LLM), protocolos de automatización de transacciones (TAP) y contratos inteligentes. La selección de casos se basó en la variabilidad funcional y el contexto de ejecución, con cada sistema constituyendo una unidad de análisis. Un caso incluye contratos automatizados que congelan activos al coincidir con un patrón sintáctico predefinido; otro implica LLMs que emiten comandos ejecutables embebidos en prompts estructurados; un tercero examina sistemas TAP que aplican umbrales de transacción sin intervención humana. Estos sistemas configuran una infraestructura de control que opera mediante disparadores lógicos que eluden la interpretación. Empíricamente, los tres sistemas exhibieron una tasa de ejecución del 100 % bajo condiciones de disparo formales, con una latencia promedio de respuesta de 0,63 ± 0,17 segundos y sin registros de intervención humana en entornos controlados. Esta modalidad no narrativa de poder, fundada en sintaxis ejecutable, marca una ruptura epistemológica con las teorías clásicas de dominación (Arendt, Foucault) y se distancia de los modelos normativos o deliberativos. El artículo incorpora literatura reciente sobre gobernanza infraestructural y autoridad de ejecución (Pasquale, 2023; Rouvroy, 2024; Chen et al., 2025) y hace referencia a auditorías empíricas de vulnerabilidades en contratos inteligentes (p. ej., Nakamoto Labs, 2025), así como a estudios recientes sobre seguimiento de instrucciones en LLMs (Singh y Alvarado, 2025), para exponer tanto el potencial operativo como los riesgos epistémicos. La metodología de verificación propuesta es falsable, especificando métricas basadas en resultados—como latencia de ejecución, integridad disparador–respuesta y tasa de intervención—con umbrales de verificación formal (p. ej., tasa de ejecución inferior al 95 % bajo secuencias de disparo estándar) sujetas a verificación algorítmica y cuantificación de errores replicable.        

1/ I am proud to announce that my paper on Generative approaches to Germanic syntax is published:

doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/97801

You may often have asked yourself what we need publishers for. Well, there was peer review and a good editorial process, but my main partner in this was Prof. Oliver Schallert and the editors of the encyclopedia. The remaining task of the publishers is to ruin our manuscripts and they did quite successfully.

Someone actually spent time making a #linter for #Postgres, and now we’re diving into the abyss of #custom #operators. 🥱 Apparently, there are more symbols than anyone asked for, but hey, at least they're not postfix! 🤯 Let's all pretend we're excited about Trino's #syntax influence. 🎉
steve.dignam.xyz/2025/06/20/in #Trino #Developer #Tools #HackerNews #ngated

Log Blog Kebab · Interesting Bits of Postgres GrammarLessons from building a parser

#todotxr #ebnf #bnf #wsn #grammar #syntax

Are there any grammar/syntax folks here who've worked with (E)BNF/WSN/etc?

I'm doing some work on todotxt (todotxt.org) to define its formal grammar in EBNF. I'm having a terrible time being able to validate its syntax, etc. Every on-line validator I've found (or library via rust) seems to completely disagree on the proper syntax, for example:

foo ::= "1" | "2"' ;

Some don't like the "::", some want ":=", or "=", some don't like the terminator (";") at the end of the line, etc.

I've written EBNF before, although admittedly I just made my own judgement as to the validity of it -- and in this example, the point wasn't to then generate a parsing syntax from it.

But with todotxt, I do want to be able to do that, and I'm struggling with all these little discrepancies.

Any help/thoughts would be really useful.

TIA!

todotxt.orgTodo.txt: Future-proof task tracking in a file you controlTrack your tasks and projects in a plain text file, todo.txt. A todo.txt is software and operating system agnostic; it's searchable, portable, lightweight and easily manipulated.

Ah, the riveting world of programming languages! 🤓 Let's all gather 'round as the tortured souls of #academia once again convince us that rehashing a thousand flavors of #mediocrity is the pinnacle of #innovation. 🎉 Quick, someone fetch the world's tiniest violin; this epic tale of #syntax and #semantics needs a soundtrack. 🎻
kirancodes.me/posts/log-lang-d #programminglanguages #HackerNews #ngated

kirancodes.meProgramming Language Design in the Era of LLMs: A Return to Mediocrity?

📢🎙️Could an #LLM create a full Domain-Specific Language? Can you #vibe your new #DSL? Including a #metamodel, a #textual and a #graphical #syntax?

I tried to answer these and other questions as part of my #talk: “Who will create the languages of the future?” at #OOPLE25.

As an experiment, I used Cursor + Claude to generate a DSL to create #funding.yml files (used in open source projects to specify the management of sponsorship money).

See how it went (and the reflections the experiment triggered!) ⬇️⬇️

modeling-languages.com/vibe-ds

(thanks to all that came for the very interesting questions and discussions 🙏)

Vibe DSLing
Modeling Languages · Could an LLM create a full Domain-Specific Language?Can you vibe a DSL? Will future languages be created by language engineers? The answer is "yes but".