Talk:Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Old talk

I've often wondered about this supposed sentence. How is this gramatically valid? Using "Buffalo" for the city, "bison" for the animal, and "bewilder" for the verb, how would one write it? "Buffalo bison Buffalo bison bison bewilder Buffalo bison"? It seems to stop making sense round about the fifth buffalo. In the "translation", what does the clause "whom other bison from the city in New York intimidate" correspond to? What in the original sentence is the syntactical equivalent of "whom"?- Nunh-huh 19:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No one below has answered your quesiton plainly. You're interpreting the sentence wrong. Your third "bison" should be "bewilder": "Buffalo bison Buffalo bison bewilder bewilder Buffalo bison". The clause "whom other bison from the city in New York intimidate" refers to the parenthesized words here: "Buffalo bison (Buffalo bison bewilder) bewilder Buffalo bison". The subject of the sentence is "Buffalo bison Buffalo bison bewilder"; the verb is "bewilder" and the object is "Buffalo bison". Turning back to the subject, it could be written more clearly as "Buffalo bison whom Buffalo bison bewilder". Does that help?

[The] Buffalo [bison] [that] Buffalo [bison] [bewilder] [themselves] [bewilder] [other] Buffalo [bison]. Probably. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Spot on ALoan. The explanation in the article needs some work. violet/riga (t) 20:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good. At least I can continue to have English as my first language :) I was tempted to add this as an external link... -- ALoan (Talk) 20:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I came across that one! violet/riga (t) 21:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is so confusing...but so Wikipedia at the same time! :-) --HappyCamper 00:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This article just has to reappear next April 1! Did you know... ...that Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo? Melchoir 21:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This one's a gem :) -- Samir धर्म 06:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo vs. Bison

On this page, both "buffalo" and "American buffalo" are used to refer to bison. As far as I know, this is incorrect and should be changed. I'm not doing it myself because I'm rather inexperienced, and would rather get confirmation of this first. 72.66.77.52 01:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between an buffalo and a bison ? You can't wash your hands in a buffalo ! -- Beardo 05:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fish-and-chips

Regarding the fish-and-chips example under English: surely adding quotation marks in the initial part of the phrase totally defeats the point of the sentence, namely "wouldn't it be better if there *were* quotation marks"? I'm going to remove them, do feel free to discuss this if you think I'm incorrect. Philosophicles 13:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Why delete? What would be the reason?

And wouldn't it be nice to add some audio clips (e.g. in the other languages section) so emphasis, tonality and accent can become more clear? Emmaneul 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a great idea. We should get the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia here. violet/riga (t) 14:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo?

Please forgive me my poor English, but I cannot parse the example from the ext. reference [1] in the way it was written there. I stumbled on the fourth level: How come "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo" means "American bison habitually bamboozled by members of their own species (that is, buffalo whom other buffalo regularly buffalo) characteristically engage in bamboozlement."? Namely, I fail to see how passive voice comes into play here. Please help. `'mikka (t) 23:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[The] [buffalo=bison] [that other] [buffalo=bison] [buffalo=bamboozle] [engage in] [buffalo=bambooling]. HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops! that's exactly the example from our article truncated. The examples from this blog were the base of [the book]. Can someone verify whether the buffalo sentence is in there, so that it may be a solid reference to this article? And an improvement, too, since we can describe a sentence of arbitrary length. (Now unfortunately it is not allowed, since blogs are not valid sources ) `'mikka (t) 23:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation

68.42.67.85 added this:

With punctuation it would be: Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

I think that's wrong, right? I mean, the sentence boils down to:

"Bison other bison tease tease some other bison", which I'm pretty positive can't be "Bison, other bishon tease, tease some other bison."

In fact the statement "The omission of punctuation makes it difficult to read the flow of the sentence" seems to indicate that punctuation has been omitted, and it really hasn't, has it? Should that bit go? 02:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That IS TOO correct, but it omits an implied "whom" such as this:

Bison, whom other bison tease, tease some other bison.

That is it, and so the punctuation is correct as written there, with the commas at between the second and third and between the fifth and sixth words.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.67.85 (talk • contribs) 02:28, September 17, 2006

But that's not correct without the whom. I think. Help I need a grammarian. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would APPROVE the move. Note also that Buffalo (as opposed to buffalo) refers to Buffalo, New York. Apfox 18:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Red-headed boys blonde girls tease tease brunette girls."

It's not very pretty, but it works without the "whom" (whom blonde girls tease). Then replace all hair colors to Buffalo and all boys and girls to buffalo, and change all instances of "tease" to buffalo, and you end up with the sentence "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." Quod erat demonstrandum. --Tony Sidaway 04:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's right. And, if you change the sentence to "Red-headed boys, blonde girls tease, tease brunette girls", it's no longer a sentence. "Red-headed boys, whom blonde girls tease, tease brunette girls" is a sentence, but it's a different one, actually, since it is talking now about all the red-headed boys (and it so happens that they are all teased by the blonde girls), rather than the subset of red-headed boys who are teased by the blonde girls. So this business of dropping in the commas is wrong. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo-city buffalo bully/buffalo bison (that) proper-noun-Buffalo (do) buffalo is as far as you can get legitimately. You cannot omit the descriptors and adjectives legally. I cannot see that this is a legal sentence at all. If one really needs this kind of Mensa-cruft, try "That that that that is is that that that that is," or Elvis Costello's "People pleasing people pleasing people like you" (which is legitimate and only omits potential hyphens), but not this. There are too many missing terms for this to be valid. To say, "With enough tinkering you can understand this" is not the same thing as saying "this is a syntactically valid sentence." As for "grammatically correct," that's out of the question, as the suggested parsings show us that there are several elements that need punctuating. Geogre 04:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The commas are incorrect, think about putting them in a sentence with exactly the same structure:

 Men, women love, love men.

They are clearly wrong here, just as they are in the buffalo sentence. Perhaps you want to suggest the prosody one would use while saying the sentence out load, but that is not the same as punctuation. —johndburger 14:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hare and and and and and Hounds.

A pub - the Hare and Hounds - has a new pub sign painted. But the painter accidentally leaves out the spaces between Hare and and and and and Hounds. In writing to complain about this error, the pub owner's typewriter develops a fault such that in his letter, there is a 'Q' between 'Hare' and 'and', and 'and' and 'and', and 'and' and 'and', and 'and' and 'and', and 'and' and 'and', and 'and' and 'Hounds'. By conjuring up increasingly unlikely events, you can construct a valid sentence with any number of consecutive 'and's in it. SteveBaker 03:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In your example, putting the word in quotes makes it lose its original meaning. It is now used as a noun, and no longer is a conjunction. The Buffalo sentence is special in that "Buffalo" still perfectly maintains its grammatical and contextual status. Mchmike 23:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dave1001 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC) is this spam?

Ending period?

I can understand what the sentence says, thanks to the second external link, but how is it correct without an ending period?

Cyclic Buffaloing

If Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo, then there is a cycle in the directed graph consisting of vertices that represent Buffalo buffalo where a directed edge goes from Buffalo buffalo A to Buffalo buffalo B if Buffalo buffalo A buffaloes Buffalo buffalo B, provided that there is at least one but not infinitely many Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo. Synesthetic 06:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

best article title ever

That's all I have to say about that.--Mike Selinker 06:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Either this or exploding sheep. -- the GREAT Gavini 08:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There's also exploding whale. Shawnc 10:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, best article EVAR. --Suleyman Habeeb 08:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Broux 18:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I love it!!! Flutefluteflute 17:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is quite possibly the best page on wikipedia The Incredible Moo 13:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

origin

sentences like this have been around for far longer than 1992, as claimed in the article. when i attended Hampshire College Summer Studies in Math/Cognitive Science in 1984 and 1985, sentences like "buffalo buffalo buffalo" (and longer variants) were commonly used to test parsers that students wrote (usually in Lisp). other variants were "fish fish fish", "char char char" ("char" is a type of fish) and "French french French".

Benwing 07:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Had had example

That solved an argument for me - my wife, where I had had "had had 'had', had had 'had had'. 'Had had' had had", had had "had had 'had had', had had 'had'. 'Had' had had". "had had 'had', had had 'had had'. 'Had had' had had" had had the approval of Wikipedia.

Still can't understand it

This is what I've got so far, and it makes little or no sence to me:

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Bison confuse Buffalo bison confuse bison Buffalo bison.

Buffalo confuse Buffalo bison who confuse bison, Buffalo bison.

I think it's a who, I thought whom's only come after prepositions.

The second "bufflo" isn't confuse, it's bison. The sentance becomes "Buffalo bison Buffalo bison confuse confuse Bufflo bison". With other words, it becomes "Buffalo bison (that other) Bufflo Bison confuse, (themselves) confuse Buffalo Bison". The bison are confused by bison and confuse other bison. If that doesn't help, look at the example given earlier on this page, maybe that will (with boys and girls instead of buffalo). Salur 10:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's replace 'Buffalo' (the city) with 'Boston' and 'buffalo' (the verb) with 'confuse'.

 Boston buffalo Boston buffalo confuse confuse Boston buffalo.

...now add in some omitted words:

 The Boston buffalo that other Boston buffalo confuse also confuse other Boston buffalo.

Since all the buffalo come from Boston, let's leave that unsaid:

 The buffalo that other buffalo confuse also confuse other buffalo.

...or to say it more clearly:

 In a herd of buffalo in the city of Buffalo, there are three groups of
 aniumals: A, B and C such that

 A confuses B
 B confuses C

 Group B, that group A confuse, confuse group C in turn.

...now put it back together by replacing 'A', 'B' and 'C with 'Boston buffalo':

 Boston buffalo, that Boston buffalo confuse, confuse Boston buffalo in turn.

...then change confuse to 'buffalo':

 Boston buffalo Boston buffalo confuse confuse Boston buffalo.

...then drop out words and punctuation that are optional in English:

 Boston buffalo Boston buffalo buffalo buffalo Boston buffalo.

...then put the action back in Buffalo:

 Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Man, Spanish language is easier

I mean it. I really mean it. ¿Why are we speaking in english anyway?

Alternative Explanation Based on Pecking Order

There are three classes of buffalo mentioned, with a pecking order: the "top" buffaloes intimidate the "middle" buffaloes, who in turn intimidate the "bottom" buffaloes.

Buffalo buffalo (middle) which Buffalo buffalo (top) buffalo(verb)

buffalo(verb) Buffalo buffalo (bottom).

The top line is the subject of the sentence. That is, the sentence is primarily about telling us what the middle buffaloes do. The second half of the top line qualifies these middle buffaloes, telling us that they are the buffaloes who are intimidated by other buffaloes (i.e. the top buffaloes).

Now that the top line has explained who we are talking about (the middle buffaloes), the bottom line tells us what they actually do - they intimidate other buffaloes (i.e. the bottom buffaloes).

--Mahemoff 00:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

as many as ninety-two possible interpretations. ??

About "other languages" section ... I found this discription besides "niwa niwa niwa niwatori ga iru". I am a native Japanese speaker, but have never heard such possible interpretations. It should be read in one sole way, "niwa (garden) niwa (at ...) niwa (two + counting suffix for birds) niwatori (chickin) ga (presenting the topic = here, "niwatori") iru (be, lay)". I would like to know what was the source.

Not exactly same to "BbBbbbBb", due to similarity in a phrase comes from writing, not from its pronunciation, here is another Japanese phrase "子子子子子子子子子子子子"; though it is not the way to write this phrase, it can be read "neko no ko no koneko; shishi no ko no kojishi" (pussycat, as a child of a cat; kojishi (lionkid) as a child of a lion). It appeared as an episode of Ono no Takamura in Kodansho. Somehow pedantic, but well known, even not so much as "niwa niwa". --Aphaia 10:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Does Boris merit a mention?

Is it worth noting that Boris Johnson said "Badgers badgers badger badger badgers" and "Dogs dogs dog dog dogs" on HIGNFY? He explained the structure with the sentence "Men women love love women". --Adam (Talk) 12:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. `'mikka (t) 17:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew

Would someonelike to write the hebrew example in the hebrew alphabet and list the roots.RuthieK 13:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. ColinFine 17:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation

~~The article currently suggests that the "correct" punctuation is thus:~~

~~Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.~~

~~Both of these commas are incorrect, just as they would be in this sentence with parallel structure:~~

~~Men, women love, love men.~~

Perhaps the intent is to suggest the prosody or phrasing that one would use while saying the sentence aloud, but it is simply incorrect to suggest that those commas belong there. —johndburger 14:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I just noticed there's already such a section above. —johndburger 14:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

plural form

Isn't plural form of "buffalo" (animal) buffalos?

cause this sound ungrammatic to me:

[Some] buffalo[s] [from] Buffalo, [who are intimidated by other buffalo[s] from Buffalo],
[also themselves] intimidate [other different] buffalo[s] from Buffalo. --Shandris^the ^azylean 14:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that buffalo pluralizes the same way that antelope, cattle and moose do. Jsbillings 14:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, buffalo is one possible way of pluralize w:buffalo (together with buffaloes and buffalos) (Liberatore, 2006). 17:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Malay

I'm thinking of asking User:Xiorlanth directly since he/she added it but can someone help me make sense of this:

In Malay lovers can say "Sayang, sayang, sayang sayang sayang. Sayang sayang sayang?", which translates to "Darling, I love you. Do you love me?". This is a true homophone as the same word is used for pronoun and verb. The person being asked can even reply "Sayang," or "Sayang sayang sayang," in return.

It's been a while since I've used my Malay much but I can't think why there is two sayangs (sayang, sayang,) in the first sentence. Unless it's supposed to be saying "Darling, darling, I love you" in which case we should make this clear... Or am I missing something? Nil Einne 14:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

grammatical mistakes

I was looking at this article, and noticed a (basic) grammatical mistake in the 'Fuck' example (because it was the only one I could actually understand.) The sentence read; "Fuck! Fucking fuckers fucking fucked!"

until (just as I was about to) someone fixed it to; "Fuck! Fucking fucker's fucking fucked!"

Considering this, is there a possibility that most of the examples in the article are flawed? I, personally think that most of them seem to be incorrect (e.g. I would have capitalised Buffalo at different places in the sentence.)

I think "Fucking fuckers fucking fucked" is in simple past tense with a plural subject, while "Fucking fucker's fucking fucked" has a singular subject in either present perfect simple or simple present tense, right? Shawnc 16:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'Fuck' example seems to miss the point. Using derivational morphology to turn 'fuck' into 'fucking' and 'fucker' is cheating---the point of the original example ('Dogs dog dogs') is that 'dog', without any additional morphology, is both a noun and a verb and can be used both ways in a single sentence. Of course, the point of switching to 'buffalo' is that 'buffalo' doesn't even require any additional inflectional morphology to make a grammatical example. Luckily, 'fuck' is both a noun and a verb, even without any additional morphology, so if you want, you could have this example:

Fucks fuck fucks

146.50.22.127 14:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Or "Fucks fucks fuck fuck fucks." —Caesura ^(t) 05:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

homophones

I believe the more precise term for the different usage of the word is "homonym" not "homophone".

Well maybe...

Homonyms are words that either sound the same or are spelled the same but which have different meanings.
Homographs are words that are spelled the same but which have different meanings. eg Bow (of a ship - pronounced like 'bough') and Bow (and arrow - pronounced like 'beau'). All Homographs are by definition also Homonyms.
Homophones are words that sound the same but which have different meanings. eg To, Too and Two. All Homophones are also Homonyms.

But Buffalo, buffalo and buffalo are spelled alike and sound alike - so they are Homophones and Homographs and Homonyms. To call them homophones is to miss that they are also spelled alike and to call them homographs would miss the fact that they are pronounced the same way. Calling them homonyms is a little vague since you don't know whether the words are spelled alike or sound alike or both. Whichever word you choose misses a little of the information - but in this case, all three are correct. I suppose you could argue that the city of Buffalo is always capitalised so it's not a homograph of buffalo (the animal) or buffalo (the verb) - so I guess you could just about maybe kinda uber-pedant your way into arguing that homograph is out of the running - and I suppose that would make homophone fractionally more precise than homonym but that's one hell of a stretch. SteveBaker 16:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo...mmmm buffalo...

NO to Original Research

I confess being guilty in opening the can of worms by introducing the "similar examples" section. The things went out of control, looks like. Therefore I suggest to invoke the basic wikipedia rules: "no original research" and "cite your sources". I will not suggest to apply it retrocatively now, but all new unreferenced additions of examples should be mercilessly culled. `'mikka (t) 16:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I regularly roam Wikipedia inserting {{references}} at the drop of a hat. But somehow this feels different to me. If a sentence does indeed exhibit the same phenomenon (many of those cited do not, but some do), I don't see that it matters whether it is referenced from somewhere else, any more than you need to reference every example sentence in any other linguistics article.

I would like to see the eimilar examples section drastically pruned, however. ColinFine 17:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Colin; it seems like the "no original research" rule shouldn't apply here, as supplying examples isn't research per se. But I have a further question, and would like some feedback from the community. I posted a sentence, "That that that that had been had been that that that had been had been unexpected," which has since been deleted (EDIT: it's back up). What's more questionable, however, is that I included a discussion of the sentence, which crosses into the realm of original research. Mitigating this, however, is (1) that the discussion itself served as further exemplification of use-mention distinction and recursive referencing in English, and (2) that, as a professor, I am the type of "expert" who actually does get quoted on these matters, but simply citing myself doesn't seem appropriate. I'm not sure what the policy should be here. For reference, here is my prior addition:

"That that that that had been had been that that that had been had been unexpected." If you'd understood that sentence, then you'd have seen that "that that that that had been had been that that that had been had been unexpected" had been that that "that that that that had been had been that that that had been had been unexpected" had been referring to. This result being on its own relatively unforseeable, we might even say that that "that that that that had been had been that that that had been had been unexpected" had been that that "that that that that had been had been that that that had been had been unexpected" had been referring to had been unexpected. That "that that "that that that that had been had been that that that had been had been unexpected" had been that that "that that that that had been had been that that that had been had been unexpected" had been referring to had been unexpected" had been a valid sentence can be seen by rephrasing it as "the fact that the sentence "the fact that that was what it was was unexpected" was a sentence which refers to itself would not be likely to have been foreseen"

Thanks, all. D.E. Wittkower 19:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 'no original research' is pointless here. It is not about facts. Everyone knows English well enough to be a judge. Everyone can see if an example matches pattern. But they must match the pattern! not simply be an amusing observation of something vaguely similiar involving repetition RuthieK 19:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not right, I think. No Original Research applies just as strongly here as anywhere. It's a corrolary of Wikipedia:Verifiability, and that is a non-negotiable core policy. Verifiability trumps truth; the argument that "everyone knows English well enough to be a judge" isn't consistent with core Wikipedia policies. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

One can devise an endless number of such "facts". Unless the example is discussed in some reputable publication, its notablility is questioned. There are millions of "facts" whih don't suit for wikipedia. there is a verifiable "fact" eg through DMV records that I register my car in California. But this does not mean that I have to add info about my car into California article. The same goes with various phrases. Unless their notability is established by independent reputable source, they have no place in wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 16:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly it is not about "facts" (Mikka your lack of English comprehension really does call into question your qualification to adjudicate on this kind of article). What is needed is some criteria for inclusion. We don't want 600 examples. We want a reasonable number of the best. Finding a source is beside the point - that way we can end up with serveral hundred feeble but sourced examples. I suggest we limit the list to a dozen or so and only have the best dozen. Then we have nice arguments about relative quality, but so what. (Look at all the weak and "so what' examples in other languages. They should be trimmed. Mikka can take out all the unsourced ones if he is genuine about his policies.) RuthieK 08:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This article r0x0rz my s0x0rz!!1!

Good job explaining the meaning, it was certainly difficult (and intended thus), but rewarding. It also for some reason reminded me of:

Smurf smurf smurf.
Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich.
Badger badger badger.

w3rd. --216.9.250.6 17:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the verb recognised in the UK?

I have never seen 'buffalo' used as a verb. Is this a US English word rather than an English verb? Rob cowie 17:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of the term before, but perhaps only from US sources. It's certainly not in common usage. violet/riga (t) 17:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary suggests "US, slang" for this verb. Shawnc 18:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Because because because

The following example was deleted as original research

The only sentence in English that has 'because' three times in successive order: Some people say that one cannot begin a sentence with because because because is a conjunction. However, the preceding claim is incorrect: There is no "only" sentence having three consecutive occurrences of the word "because", because "because" can be used three times in a row in any number of valid sentences. Furthermore, because "because because because" is valid, this sentence goes on to show that "because because because because" is valid. And because "because because because because" is valid, *this* sentence shows that "because because because because because" is valid. And so forth.

Howevere I decided it is worth saving for history, because it reveals the power of quotation to create sentences of this type, — which is already present in the classical "had had had" example. `'mikka (t) 17:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the problems with it, other than original research, are false premise ("the only sentence...") and internal contradiction ("the preciding claim is incorrect"). Shawnc 18:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Different title

Given the amount of new homophonic sentences, surely it would nice to amend the title to suit this? Who on earth is ever going to type 'Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo' into the search engine?

--Jayau1234 16:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we might need to refocus the article, perhaps using this as the primary example. I was thinking of "Homophonic sentence" but that would seem to be a neology in such a context. Perhaps "Homophonic repetition" might work. We could just create that as a seperate article instead and move the other examples there. violet/riga (t) 16:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What - give up the best article title in the whole of Wikipedia?! No way! SteveBaker 16:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(Besides - is it about Homophonic, Homographic or all Homonymic constructions?)

Well, it will thill be the best redirect. :-) Although I would vote for the title *Mr. Munchausen: Being a True Account of Some of the Recent Adventures Beyond the Styx of the Late Hieronymus Carl Friedrich, Sometime Baron Munchausen of Bodenwerder , also shortened mercilessly, so prepare to be assimilated... `'mikka (t) 16:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Observation: the phrase is actually quite popular, with almost 100,000 hits. Shawnc 16:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. Only 122 unique google hits: [2]. And I swear that when I first saw this article and tried to research google to verify an add something, there were only a handful of hits. So I guess it is all wikipedia's fault. WIKIPEDIA RULES! `'mikka (t) 17:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The above search includes comas, but the original phrase does not. You can see Rapaport's original publication here. Shawnc 17:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Commas are ignored by google. At the same I find it to be an amusing feature of google that the shorter phrase, "buffalo buffalo buffalo" gives 5x less hits! `'mikka (t) 18:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just discovered an amazing phenomenon of google. If it is not reperted elsewhere yet, hereby I pronounce it to be "the Buggalo Effect" (or, better, "Mikkalai's Buffalo Effect";... OK, OK,... "Mikkalai's Buffalo Google Effect"). I enter the word "buffalo" in the quoted search string several times and record the number of hits:

Buffalo x1 : 237,000,000
Buffalo x2 : 966,000
Buffalo x3 : 18,200
Buffalo x4 : 9,400
Buffalo x5 : 906
Buffalo x6 : 101,000
Buffalo x7 : 126,000
Buffalo x8 : 94,000
Buffalo x9 : 126,000
Buffalo x10: 94,600
Buffalo x11: 125,600
Buffalo x12: 94,600
Buffalo x13: 132,000
Buffalo x14: 96,000
Buffalo x15: 125,000
Buffalo x16: 95,600
Buffalo x15: 126,000
Buffalo x17: 94,300

I am working on its explanation. When I'm done and publish it, I hope I will get myself an article in wikipedia at last! `'mikka (t) 18:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Pity about WP:NOR on this one, it could make an interesting article... I wonder why that is... Were the capitalized, or not? It might make a difference... Tuvas 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't reproduce the results, unfortunately (I get less than 100 results for a large number of buffalos. But I do remember reading that when there are more than 10 words between the quotes, Google ignores some (I'm not sure which). Did you check whether some of those 94,300 pages actually have 17 buffalos? I also seem to recall that when you use * (to replace an unknown word), it isn't counted as a word. So you could try searching for "buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo * * * * * * * buffalo buffalo buffalo", and hope that the stars will actually correspond to buffalo.

I'm just hoping that my message isn't harder to understand than the title of the article... Good luck! Pruneau^talk 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Rapaport's original phrase

Rapaport's original phrase is different from the one in this article. His had 10 words: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." The one in this article has 8, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo."

The 10-word version introduces a new verb "Buffalo buffalo", which Rapaport likens to "Tennessee waltzing". For clarity, the following two sentences have similar syntax:

Buffalo buffalo  Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Mice             cats            chase           eat             cheese.

Shall we rename this article to Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.?

Pro: longer title is true to the original phrase.
Con: esoteric use of the verb "Buffalo buffalo". Shawnc 18:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's really surprising to know that it may be a grammatically right sentence.

Remark: in the long version, the proper noun "Buffalo" is used as an adverb that modifies the verb buffalo. Can this be considered grammatically correct? Shawnc 19:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No way, it's bogus. The analogy to Tennessee waltzing is incorrect: Tennessee is a noun adjunct that modifies the gerund waltzing, not an adverb. *I Tennessee waltzed is ungrammatical. In the same way, Buffalo buffaloing is grammatical, but *buffalo Buffalo buffalo other buffalo is not. —Keenan Pepper 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, see the section below for some empirical evidence. —johndburger 03:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Really long vs. unboundedly long

My understanding had always been that this example was interesting not just because it was a really long sentence using only one word-form, but because arbitrarily long sentences of this type were all grammatical, i.e., every sentence buffaloⁿ, n >= 1, is grammatical and interpetable. Thus some of the supposedly similar examples like "two to two to two two" or "malo malo malo malo" are not quite the same, because they can't be extended unboundedly. David Chiang 00:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct, according to Sweet Reason: A Field Guide to Modern Logic by Tim Tymoczko and Jim Henle. It's a great book, and I highly recommend it. I like the way you wrote this, and you should add it to the article. Feel free to steal my sourcing. --JaimeLesMaths 01:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to disagree. The author of "buffalo" himself explains that the example was designed in the context of the observation that if one rearranges words in a sentence, then one produces a very small number of grammatical sentences, "with a few weird exceptions". The "buffalo" was an example of such exception: a sentence however you rearrange the words in it still stays grammatical. I didn't add this into article because this explanation was in a non-reputable source: mailing list or something, which are not allowed in wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Does that still hold true with the capitalization of the city Buffalo? Though I suppose that the only feature Buffalo the city adds to the sentence is another part of speech (adjective) that also can make a more easily parsable longer sentence. The proposition still holds with just using buffalo (without capital) as noun and verb. I think, while your point is interesting, the concept of the article is more about "homonymic/phonic sentences." However, if you're able to reliably source the idea, it would be an interesting article by itself.

I also just realized that I was unclear with my first comment. I meant his understanding that buffaloⁿ is a sentence for all n >= 1 was correct, not his understanding of why the sentence was originally thought to be interesting. My bad. --JaimeLesMaths 09:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I borrowed your citation for the claim about the grammaticality of buffalo^n. I have no idea either why the sentence was originally thought to be interesting. I can only say that that was how it was originally presented to me (in 1994). Regarding capitalization, as you point out, it's not necessary for the example to work. David Chiang 16:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be buffalo*n? I assume n is an integer (because otherwise you could have fracitons of buffalo) but this means that only exponents of buffalo would work. Multiplying words makes my head hurt. Vicarious 04:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo sentence

Should we just move this to Buffalo sentence? violet/riga (t) 15:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Keenan Pepper 18:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Keep the cool title but make several redirect pages from terms like "multiple buffalos" "buffalo 8" Flutefluteflute 18:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sentence Construction

One of the stated reason why the Buffalo sentence is difficult to understand, "The length of the sentence reaches the limitations of human ability to parse structure and meaning" seems to undermine itself. In fact, sentences can be considerably longer and still quite intelligible.

Smurfs smurfing smurffy smurfally smurf smurf Smurfette!

Parse tree

I put up an image of a (simplified) parse tree, and added it to the article. I'd like to have the explanation make use of the image, but haven't the time right now. Other editors should feel free to fiddle with the sizing, caption, etc., or let me know about ways to improve the parse tree. By the way, as indicated in the caption, I think referring to relative clause, or even English relative clauses could improve the explanation. —johndburger 02:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I can SVG the image, but I'd like to know that it's correct first. Any commentary on John's commentary, welcome as commentary. -- nae'blis 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So you're after commentary commentary? Hopefully it won't be contrary commentary commentary, because we may then require contrary commentary commentary commentary. violet/riga (t) 12:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Synesthetic asked me for another parse tree, for the longer Buffalo sentence (B11, I think). I can also do this for the similar, but simpler sentence "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo", basically the same structure, but with the common nouns unmodified by the proper noun. This may help people understand the more complicated sentence. I would, in fact, rather make these SVG pix, they'll scale better. —johndburger 03:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The parse tree is Really really Really really really really Really really helpful. A great addition to the article. - Nunh-huh 12:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Even More Buffalo

Here's a trick... every time you see the animal buffalo you can start a "Buffalo buffalo buffalo" phrase like so:

Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo. Etc. Synesthetic 03:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Synesthetic was trying to say, but what was wrong with the original 10x Buffalo sentence, where "Tennessee Waltz" was an acceptable verb? Also, couldn't we extend the original sentence by three or four more words if the last set of buffalo were also being confused by more buffalo?

Many people, who many people Tennessee Waltz with, Tennessee Waltz with many (other) people, who more people also happen to Tennessee Waltz with.--Htmlism 19:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

1972 origin or earlier

I've been informed by Professor Rapaport via email that he started using the sentence in 1972, while others have been using it even earlier. Hopefully a citation will be made available shortly. Shawnc 12:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. violet/riga (t) 12:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation is now available and has been added. Shawnc 14:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Similar examples"

I think we should weed out the "similar examples" section because it's starting to look like "hey, I discovered these two homophones in my language!" or "I just constructed this sentence that uses the same word 15 times!". But, I am copying the rejected examples here for the convenience of edit-warriors. CapnPrep 15:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuck, famously has multiple uses as well: "Fuck! I hope those fucking fuckers get fucked for the fuck that they fucking fucked." or even more succinctly "Fuck! Fucking fucker's fucking fucked!" which means "Darn, it's broken." There have also been attempts to use Fuck as every possible part of speech in one sentence: "Fuck, fucking Fucker fucked the fuckers fuckingly!"
In Urdu one can say "Samajh samajh k samajh ko samjho, samajh samajh k samajh ko samajhna bhi aik samajh hay. Jo samajh samajh k samajh ko na samjhay wo meri samajh may na samajh hay" meaning: "Understand the art of understanding by good understanding, because understanding the art of understanding by good understanding is a good understanding. The one who can't understand the art of understanding by good understanding is in my understanding not able to understand."
Also in Spanish - Bebe, bebé. Bebe. Drink, baby. Drink. (With appropriate accents)
in Polish "szczęk szczęk" means "{sound of) clattering jaws", "trzask trzask" means "crack of (burning) timber chips"

There is nothing wrong with "discovering homophones in my language", as long as the examples are well-known and discussed, i.e., no original research, please and cite your sources. `'mikka (t) 20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Polish examples are very well known. Roo72 22:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

They should be well-known and also try to be as interesting as the original "Buffalo buffalo …" sentence, which really involves a lot of interacting phenomena (homophony, zero plural, zero verb derivation, unmarked relative clauses, noun-noun compounding) to produce a dumb but grammatical sentence. The Polish examples only show that you can put two homographs side by side and the resulting combination sometimes makes sense. I suspect this is not hard to find in Polish, since a lot of genitive plural feminine and neuter nouns look just like masculine nominative singular nouns (the two examples given are instances of this pattern, and I just found "but but" and "mat mat" just flipping through the dictionary for 2 minutes — they don't mean much, but maybe a Polish speaker with 2 minutes would find more). Or how about "bez bez" (without meringues) and then, "chcę bez bez bez" (I want the lilac without meringues)? It's funny, but it doesn't go any further than that. Now if somebody reveals that "Szczęk, szczęk szczęk szczęk? Szczęk szczęk szczęk-szczęk szczęk!" is a perfectly understandable Polish dialogue, then I love it. Anyway, I'm not deleting the examples again, because after all they're not the worst ones in the article. CapnPrep 23:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The architect designed an office complex. It was a complex complex - so much so that he became obsessed by it and was diagnosed as having a complex complex complex. But it was hard to cure him of it so they assumed he must have a complex complex complex complex...ad nauseam. SteveBaker 19:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the following from the "Simmilar Examples section:

A short story by Robert Sheckley Shall We Have a Little Talk? (a 1965 Nebula Award for Best Novelette) describes a planet where language mutates so fast that an Earthman colonizer cannot catch up with it: the yesterday's version he learned overnight hypnopaedically, tomorrow is no longer in use. The Earthman accepted his defeat when he was addressed thusly: Mun mun-mun-mun. Mun mun mun; mun mun mun; mun mun. Mun, mun mun mun--mun mun mun. Mun-mun? Mun mun mun mun!.

This passage has little to do with the original article, since 1) it is from a fictional story, and 2) it has no meaning in any language, including the fictional one which is mentioned in the story. - kumarei 19:05, 21 September 2006 (EST)

I think the only examples that belong here are those like the original, where every word in the sentence is identical. I can make up all sorts of examples where the words differ a bit, whenever there's a verb and noun with the same root:

Ducks ducks duck duck ducks ducks duck.

Dogs dogs dog dog dogs dogs dog.

etc., etc., etc. Why is this NOTABLE??? —johndburger 23:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Attack page?

Can anyone provide citation that the buffalo from Buffalo are being buffaloed by buffalo from Buffalo, or indeed that the aforementioned buffalo from Buffalo are themselves buffaloing other buffalo from Buffalo? If there is no proof that this is happening, this page should be speedily deleted as an attack page. ;-)
— Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) — 22:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Buffalo buffalo will Buffalo buffalo you instead! Shawnc 08:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

All forms of deletion

So this article has been AfD'd, prod'd, and now DB'd! Quite impressive, really. I like the DB one the most. violet/riga (t) 07:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all forms yet ! :-) There was no "arbitrary deletion by a rogue admin" yet. If you are willing to set a record here, I am ready to sacrifice my reputation and delete this page as G1 :-). `'mikka (t) 00:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

To Buffalo buffalo?

The original email features a longer version involving the verb 'to Buffalo buffalo'; to intimidate in a Buffolian way (c.f. to Tennesse waltz). This would make the sentence 'Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo'. Worth including? It does have a nice symmetry to it.

I think the suggestion that "to Tennessee waltz" is a legitimate verb was rather tongue-in-cheek in that email. Does anyone really buy "John and Mary Tennessee waltzed all night"? —johndburger 23:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I do buy that "Tennessee waltz" is a legitimate verb in a certain community or culture (of dancers). The same is not true for "Buffalo buffalo," at least not yet (not even in the Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo-editing community). I certainly don't accept it. In fact, to me, it makes it less interesting because then the basic "unit" of the sentence is "Buffalo buffalo" with only 5 repetitions and two different meanings. In the original, we have 8 repetitions of "buffalo" with three different meanings, which is more interesting to me than the symmetry of the other example. --JaimeLesMaths 00:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there are only a dozen or so occurrences of the bigram Tennessee waltzed in Google at the moment. Only one or two are arguably the verb form we're discussing, and those seem to be in poems or songs. The rest are things like Tennesse waltzed over their opponents. Again, for what it's worth. —johndburger 15:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Buffaloing Buffalo

Can Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo? Synesthetic 23:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to buffalo a whole city? —Keenan Pepper 00:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. You can even buffalo a whole country if you're, say, a certain president... Shawnc 14:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Linguistic Term For This Kind of Sentence?

Anyone care to coin a linguistic neologism to describe sentences/phrases of this ilk. There's clearly enough of them in different languages, and enough interest from all over the place, to warrant a term. e.g. "Buffalo phrase" (cf. Snowclone - another linguistic term that's based on a well-known exemplar). --Mahemoff 00:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

~~I plump for "homophonic sentence".~~ violet/riga (t) 12:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "homophonous sentence" would be more accurate. violet/riga (t) 12:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the earlier discussion under the section "homophones" - it's really not right to call the entire category of these things "homophones" when some of the cases are "homographs" and other cases (such as the 'buffalo*8' sentence in the title) are clearly both homophones AND homographs. "homonym" is a much better term IMHO. Furthermore, Wikipedia policy discourages neologisms - so picking a neologism that we ourselves invent is even worse! SteveBaker 14:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Having just spoken to an English Language professor I'm told that both "homophonic sentence" and "homophonous sentence" are used. violet/riga (t) 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Some bloody git removed my earlier petition to move this article to a more encompassing name for the linguistic oddity. As I said there, New Scientist postulates (or rather, doesn't) that words like these are 'polyontologias'. Or something. --84.64.51.100 22:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No punny neologisms here, please. `'mikka (t) 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention that unlike majority of other examples, the Buffalo thingy is 100% polysemy play: all "buffalos" in the sentence are derived from the same basic meaning, which is "buffalo" :-). `'mikka (t) 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is interesting that linguists didn't invent a word for this kind of wordplay, which turns out to be known in all languages. Let's hope this wikipedia article stir some interest among experts, and they come up with some nice Greeklish or Latinglish word, published in a solid academic research paper. AFAIK this might be the first contribution of wikipedia into new knowledge. `'mikka (t) 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"This kind of wordplay" is a number of different phenomena, but I have seen references to "buffalo sentences" in the literature. —johndburger 02:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

About that audio recording

I am interested in doing the audio recording for this article. However, there are some obstacles. First, I don't know how to voice the part "Buffalo^c buffalo^a Buffalo^c buffalo^a buffalo^v buffalo^v Buffalo^c buffalo^a." without breaking up the flow. Second, I wouldn't be able to sound like a native speaker for the parts in the "other languages" section. While normally that would disqualify me, I don't know if we can find anyone who could do that in the world. I could finesse the European languages, I supposed, but it would be really off for the Filipino and Chinese ones. Suggestions? MrVoluntarist 03:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We could have a native speaker record each one separately and then splice them together. —Keenan Pepper 16:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I am intrested in doing the splicing and possibly even the recording. I have practise with splicing and audio work. Flutefluteflute 18:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing Hight Traffic Links

I personally believe that those three boxes at the top of this page should stay as although it is unlikely people are finding the article through theese sites they show the achievemnet of this article. Flutefluteflute 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Song lyrics section

This section does not seem to fit; it even says so. Is there a reason it hasn't been deleted?

Lyrics of modern songs abound in examples of repetitions, as parodied by Donald Knuth in his mathematical joke The Complexity of Songs or seen in the Badger Badger Badger Internet meme. However, they are not examples of challenges for parsing the sentence, and hence off-topic for this article.

I tried to delete it, and it's back. I'll try again. Fishal 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's back again. I'm going to try to delete it.

- kumarei 28:28, 26 October 2006 (EDT)

I deleted the section once again, and asked that anyone reverting it please post here, so hopefully we should get an answer as to why it keeps reappearing.

Reasons for deleting this reference:

1) This section has no point but to bring up a topic which is, self-admittedly, not in the domain of this article. 2) This article, as has been established in previous corrections and debates, is not at all about repetitive words, but is about a complex, grammatically correct sentence which is interesting for reasons of grammar. Not only is the topic of the section outside the domain of the article, it in fact has nothing to do with the article. 3) It falls into the trap of original research, with no sources given or possible. In addition, the first sentence is a subjective measure of how many repititions are in modern songs. This is not something that should be in an encyclopedia.

- kumarei 01:20, 27 October 2006 (EDT)

I agree—this article has turned into a mess of original research, barely related to the sentence in question. Most of the other examples should go as well, since they're not at all the same thing as the original Buffalo sentence. As I pointed elsewhere on this page, there's a nearly unlimited set of sentences like "Dogs dogs dog dog dogs"—so what??? —johndburger 14:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Song lyrics is not original research. It is a yet another example (described in wikipedia) of repetitive structure of a somewhat different kind, but still a grammatically correct sentence, kind of "See also" section. "Barely related to the sentence in question" is not an argument. Bt this logic everything should be deleted except of the first section. The article now is not about a single sentence. It it about a grammatical phenomenon. People already started discussing how to rename this article. `'mikkanarxi 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article about "anything that repeats", and the material in the paragraph in question is not particularly noteworthy. "Song lyrics" doesn't belong here; if it belongs in a refocused, renamed article, add it then. - Nunh-huh 15:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the article is not about "anything that repeats". It is about "sentences that repeat a single word". It is perfectly legal to mention things similar to the topic in question in encyclopedia. the goal is to provide interrelated information. Nearly al articles hace "see also" section that mention tangential issues. As for notewirthiness, excuse me, it is but your POV. `'mikkanarxi 15:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not mine alone. You are the sole proponent of the section in question. Don't re-add it until you have the support of others. - Nunh-huh 15:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You failed to notice that I am no longer re-adding it. Please check what you are reverting. `'mikkanarxi 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have merely rephrased it and called the section "See also:". It's pretty much your fourth readdition of the same material within 24 hours. You're in violation of the spirit, and possibly the letter, of the 3RR. You are the only advocate for its inclusion, and you're pursuing its inclusion by edit-warring rather than by convincing others. Don't re-add this material again. - Nunh-huh 17:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about "sentences that repeat the same word". Even if it was, though, these examples would still fall outside the scope of the article because the song lyrics are neither sentences nor parts of sentences. They are phrases, which are not grammatically correct. Please at least make sure that the argument that you're using agrees with the section you're arguing for. -kumarei 14:48, 27 October 2006 (EDT)

<shrug> `'mikkanarxi 19:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The 'fell' example

I can't find a published source for this example (I think it was only recently pointed out), so I am putting it here instead, and will leave it to others to decide if it can be included.

The fell fell, from the fell fell.

This uses four meanings of the word fell, and can in fact be parsed to have two different meanings. The four meanings of fell are: (a) the noun 'fell' (an animal hide); (b) the noun 'fell' (referring to a, sometimes barren, upland area); (c) the adjective 'fell' (something deadly and dangerous); (d) 'fell' as the past tense of the verb 'to fall'.

Using these labels, the two meanings of the sentence are:

(1) The fell^c fell^a, from the fell^b fell^d.
(2) The fell^a fell^d, from the fell^c fell^b.

The second meaning may be slightly silly, as a deadly animal hide would not really form part of a rational sentence, and similar objections may be raised for the first meaning of a deadly upland area. But I'd be interested to see what others think.

This construction has also been mentioned at the language reference desk. I may be able to dig up the link to that discussion (it was probably earlier in 2006) if anyone wants it. Carcharoth 12:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

None of these is grammatically correct as long as the comma is present!

Oysters?

The first time I heard this kind of sentence was "Oysters Oysters Oysters Eat Eat Eat" (To crack it, look at the base case: Oysters Eat, which is clearly grammatically correct/ The second case, Oysters Oysters Eat Eat simple means "The Oysters (that Oysters Eat) Eat" From there, it is easy to take this onto infinity. Oysters Oysters Oysters Eat Eat Eat would mean "The Oysters (that Oysters (that Oysters eat) eat) eat") Should this example be added to the main page? It seems like it fits the original topic, that is, a gramitcally correct phrase consisting of just one word, much better than many of the other english examples listed, which often instert other words inbetween the repeated words or simply use words that sound the say. --Sirclucky 02:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Any relative clause in English can be repeated indefinitely in this way, and it is thus not notable or unique to any word or combination of words in the language. The only interesting thing the above phrase does is make use of the fact that 'eat' can be both a transitive and intransitive verb, in order to use it in both capacities. But as I explain in the 'limits' section of the article, the problem with using this tactic is that the nesting of relative clauses is usually considered syntactically incomprehensible in English, even if it does not technically break any fundamental syntactic rules. What is special about Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo is that it creates a sentence of maximal length *without* the use of nested relative clauses. --Yst 08:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Shorten the name??

Wouldnt it make sense to just title this page "Buffalo buffalo buffalo"? Haplolology 02:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, i agree. Not a dog 22:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject of the article isn't the phrase "Buffalo buffalo buffalo," it's the entire sentence. I think the page is correctly titled. —Cel ithemis 23:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the above, but I redirected Buffalo buffalo buffalo to Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo., so people typing in the former can find the latter. -Emiellaiendiay 01:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with having that redirect, but not with changing the name of the article itself. --Czj 03:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Cantonese also a tonal language

Cantonese is also a tonal language, which is not made clear. In fact, it uses more tones than Mandarin does. I would modify the entry so it is clear but I don't know if the Cantonese phrase which is presented is ever used as a teaching tool. Does anyone know?

Jmchen 05:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good article

Does anybody else think that this article should be promoted to GA status? 0L1 Talk Contribs 11:10 5/11/2006 (UTC)

No, it needs a good bit of work—for example, most of the examples need to be removed, since they are almost completely tangential to the point of the article. —johndburger 02:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There's lots of great stuff here, but the article itself is too poorly defined in scope and content, and the criteria for inclusion of material too vague, for this article to be called a good and finished work --Yst 04:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I do, and here's why: This article, unlike most Wikipedia articles, shows an amazing display of the unique culture that Wikipedia supports, without breaking any of the rules. While some of the material is less necessary, it does not actively harm the article. Also, the article is notable, well visited, and academic, in some regard. It provides the information in a non-biased way, and well frames the hilarity of the actual topic. While it might be seen as slightly less-than-professional to keep this article, or to promote it, it points out some of the major benefits that the wiki has to other encyclopedic mediums- allowing knowledge to be spread despite it not being strictly (and arbitrarily) professional. I don't only believe that this article should be lifted to Good Article status, I think that someone should prepare it to be used as a front page. --8472

German example -- close enough to be included?

There's another example in German too, but the words are not EXACTLY alike but very close:

In Ulm und um Ulm und um Ilm herum.

I'll leave it here in case someone thinks it's worthy enough to be added to the article. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Like most of the examples (sadly) already on the page, I do not think this belongs—the notability of the Buffalo sentences, to me, is that every single word is identical. Thank you for raising it for discussion, though, rather than blithely adding it to the article. —johndburger 05:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Catch-22

Would the example from Catch-22 be useful here? At least it's well referenced. There's a character Major Major Major (so named as a joke by his father) who gets promoted to the rank of Major making him Major Major Major Major. Ronank 14:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the editor who removed it said it quite well: this is about repetitive-sounding sentences, and that's not a sentence. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

wikilinks

It might be clearer to write the sentence entirely in wikilinks pointing to each usage of Buffalo and to maintain consistency with http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/buffalo

quantum physics

This article is awesome! It also hurts my brain more than quantum physics! Anyone who is not afraid of "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" has not fully understood it!

FA on April 1, 2007?

We've got plenty of time. Who's with me? --Czj 03:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the article is a list. If you want this to become Featured, the first step would be to export most of these to a separate list article (List of buffalo sentences?) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an exceedingly good suggestion, it seems to me, though I would propose, List of Homophonous Phrases or something similar, with the page Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo then being restricted to analysis of that phrase itself and its status as the source of the English language's longest phrase constructed entirely of homophones --Yst 10:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have created that page. I will wait a bit before deleting from this page. Please help sort out the new page.-- Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 12:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

On a slightly different theme should we ask ourselves why the buffalo phrase deserves an article of it own any more than a phrase on the new page? -- Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 15:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the page should really be moved to whatever the linguists in the posts further up the page decide is the correct term for this type of construct, the article benefits a lot from including a worked example of how these sentences are put together. Since one example is pretty much as good as another, and the work for Buffalo... is already done and it appears to be a fairly common one in the literature (as they go), I don't see any pressing need to delete the bulk of the text. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I applaud the creation of the ancillary list article, although I might have named it List of only vaguely related examples :). —johndburger 03:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Another grammar thing

Okay, if I'm understanding the sentence as "NewYork bison (who) NewYork bison intimidate(comma) intimidate (other) NewYork bison, then the image parse-tree is incorrect. "New York" as a city is a proper noun, but as "New York subway tunnel," it'd be a proper adjective. For the buffalo sentence, Buffalo(city) is a modifier for buffalo(bison). Could someone fix it, and fix the tags to match?(I'll try but I've never uploaded an image before) Unless of course I'm horribly mistaken, in which case please explain in small words. Cantras 05:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, a noun does not become an adjective simply because it modifies another noun (which nouns do rather a lot in English), it becomes a noun adjunct within the compound, and remains a noun. "Buffalonian" would be an Adjective. "Buffalo" is never an adjective. The semantic test for this is the placement of the word following a copula used in an attributive capacity, in which case only an adjective is acceptable (whereas either an adjective or a noun adjunct may modify a noun within a noun phrase). "Those bisons are Buffalonian" is acceptable, as "Buffalonian" is an adjective, while "Those bisons are Buffalo" is nonsense (they are a city?), as Buffalo, here as anywhere else, is merely a noun which, like all English nouns, can be used as a modifier within a noun phrase, or in apposition to one, but not elsewhere. --Yst 10:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Read It

I just added the spoken version. Seems only right that someone should do it! :) --Caninedoubletake 01:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

J. Rapaport has far too much time on his hands. --80.0.130.16 14:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

More OR

"Indeed, for any n ≥ 1, the sentence buffalon is grammatically correct.[3] The shortest is 'buffalo!', meaning either 'bully (someone)!', or 'look, there are buffalo, here!' For n = 0 could be argued to be a valid garden path sentence; one's definition of 'sentence' may or may not include "" as a valid sentence. Rational sentences, however, generally include at least one word and thus are excluded for the preceding." Does this qualify under original research? Does someone have a source for this? KevinPuj 02:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't like that closing sentence either. It adds nothing and I can't see the "empty sentence" being a sentence. It needs a period, at least. —Ben FrantzDale 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity

I looked into this a while ago and found that, If you neglect the city name, the sentences become ambiguous after five words. If you allow the city name, it's ambiguous at three words; "Buffalo buffalo buffalo" could mean either "Bison bamboozle bison" or "Bison from upstate New York bamboozle." So even if the sentences are parsable, they are ambiguous. —Ben FrantzDale 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo

The Buffalo Zoo contains bison. This page needs a picture of some Buffalo buffalo, or even some Buffalo buffalo buffaloing Buffalo buffalo. —Ben FrantzDale 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Final full stop

What is the full stop (period) doing at the end of the article title? I assume it was added under a false notion that "a sentence has to end in a full stop", which may be half true in continuous written prose but certainly doesn't apply here. (You don't see many full stops at the end of newspaper headlines, for instance, yet most of them are grammatically complete sentences.) Any objections if I take it out? --Blisco 18:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No? OK, I will. --Blisco 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiWorld Cartoon

I see the WikiWorld cartoon as self-reference. The illustrations from it are nice, and could add to the article, but the title line is inappropriate. Comments? —Ben FrantzDale 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe its a stretch to call it a self-reference. I think shouldn't be an embedded image. Perhaps a link to the artist's external site would be better. Vees 16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing I find most self-referential is that it includes the Wikipedia logo and in that the cartoon's text explicitly references this page and would not exist at all if it weren't for this page. It also has the author's name prominently (if illegibly) featured, which seems inappropriate. Additionally, I don't see how the cartoon adds anything to the article. The text comes from the article, and while the pictures are cute, at the same time they are unencyclopedic. All told, I don't see how it adds anything while it detracts from the tone of the article. —Ben FrantzDale 12:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the naked image with the appropriate template from the WikiProject concerned. Please go there and read the accumulated discussion before jumping to further conclusions. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. That presentation makes it "meta" to my eyes. I still think the WikiWorld project is misguided, but at least this makes it clear that it's not part of the article. —Ben FrantzDale 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More punctuation

Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are intimidated by other bison in their community, also happen to intimidate other bison in their community.

I feel like the commas (besides "Buffalo, New York") shouldn't be in this sentence. Having them there makes it sound like the first mention of bison is talking about all bison, when it's supposed to be only a subset (a buffalo can't intimidate itself, presumably). I think this is a case of restrictive vs. nonrestrictive clauses? The "who are intimidated by other bison in their community" is necessary to restrict "bison" to the right ones... it's not additional unnecessary description and shouldn't be set off with commas.

Actually I think there is something about setting off "city, state" with another comma afterward ([3])... not sure why... but then the third comma still shouldn't be there. --Galaxiaad 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is already a rather loose paraphrasing of the original. Replace "Buffalo, New York" with "upstate New York" and remove the need for the commas there. —mako (talk•contribs) 14:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

...

So this is what those people who majored in English are doing with their time. XM 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)