Talk:Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo/Archive 4

Marklar
The "other words" section of this page lists some examples of words that can be used to construct similar sentences. I've removed the word "marklar" twice now, partly because it's a nonsense word made up by South Park, and partly because it doesn't even work; according the article that marklar redirects to, it can only be used as a noun. Anyway, removing "marklar" drew my attention to the other words listed, and I think a lot of them are likely to confuse the average reader. They confused me, at any rate. I'll go through them.


 * police and dice are both fine. "Police police police..." and "dice dice dice..." make sense.
 * people, I'm not sure about. "People people people..." might make grammatical sense, but it's semantically nonsensical. People can't be peopled. Okay, the article does say that these sentences aren't necessarily meaningful, but that means we're veering away from the "buffalo buffalo" concept. I'd rather stick to examples that are meaningful (and preferably that have the same triple meaning as buffalo, but I can't think of anything that does).
 * perch kind of works, I guess. You have to think about it, though.
 * smelt and char are species of fish. I didn't know that until I looked it up. I doubt the average person would know that, either.
 * bream is similarly obscure. It's a nautical term that means "to clean by the application of fire or scraping". Is the average reader expected to be aware of this?

Basically, I think if these words are going to be used as examples, we'll have to clearly define them and go into greater detail about why they work. Alternatively, just cut the list back to police and dice. They're the only two that are simple and intuitive, that we can reasonably expect people to grasp without any further explanation. Any thoughts? DoctorKubla (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting that stuff, which looks like vandalism to me. You are right, there are many irregular plurals that are also transitive verbs, and the authors of this citation have used a computer program to find many more that could fulfill these critrea, whic is all that is necessary to create more such grammatically identical sentences.  However, our reader is likely to notice, as you have, that bison do actually bully others of their kind, so the sentence is logical for not only grammatical but also semantic reasons, not something you might be able to say about "dice dice dice".  The best of these by far to my mind is "Police police police" because it's not only grammatical but also true.  Furthermore, as "police" is commonly used as a verb and "buffalo" far less commonly, "Police police police" is even better than "Buffalo buffalo buffalo".  However, it's easier to image what Buffalo buffalo would be, as they have a zoo there, is the noun phrase "police police" sufficently evokative of the department of internal affairs?  If so the fact that "police police police police" is clearly true and understood.  Chrisrus (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, looks fishy to me... violet/riga [talk] 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The other terms seem to be sourced back to this everything2 page by user:oolong who has commented above. I support violetriga's removals of those other words, based on WP:OR. Any 'other words' should really be sourced to a WP:RS. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Searching google scholar for leads to these papers:
 * Computational consequences of agreement and ambiguity in natural language (PDF) page 12-15, which mentions "police" and "french"
 * When is information explicitly represented (PDF) page 355 concentrates on "police", and cites the above paper.
 * And whilst I'm looking, these other refs could be added to our article:
 * - covers the Latin "Malo malo malo malo" and says "Rhetorically, the sentence Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo bufallo Buffalo buffalo is antanaclasic, which means that it keep using the same word in different sense. People have been playing around with antanaclasis since language began."
 * HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lest there be some confusion, the suspected vandalism that was reverted was the stuff about Marklar and such. No one is questioning the WP:RSes cited claims above.  By the way, let's see what happens when I type the word "antanaclasis" in brackets.  Oooo it turned blue!  Lemmie read it.... Chrisrus (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you would, everyone please do go see what I did to the article antanaclasis tonight and see what you can do with it. Chrisrus (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you would, everyone please do go see what I did to the article antanaclasis tonight and see what you can do with it. Chrisrus (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Fish
I'd recently attempted to make some additions to this page under the section 'Other Words' in order to show how other words can be used in the same type of sentence construction, and to provide one simple example using the word 'fish'. The general point is that any word that can serve as both a common noun and a transitive verb will do the trick: any such word can be repeated any number of times consecutively and the result after however many iterations will always be a grammatical (if perhaps very difficult to parse) English sentence. This point depends on a couple of facts about English: one point is that you can use a transitive verb in the imperative mood; the second and really crucial point is that in English there's a noun phrase formation rule that lets you to take any common or quantified noun phrase, add any other noun phrase and a verb phrase, and the result is itself a noun phrase. Here are some examples of this second point: And notice that since these expressions themselves are noun phrases, they can in turn occupy the 2nd position in further applications of the same formation rule. In other words, the rule can be applied recursively: These are all grammatically correct noun phrases and can be used as the subjects of sentences in English: The claim is not that these sentences are pleasant to read, or easy to understand. It is not being claimed that they are sentences that would be good to use in any common written context. But they are grammatical and have a meaning, all the same.
 * A man my sister envies
 * Many Americans Russians most admire
 * The girl Sam will marry
 * The woman a man my sister envies hired
 * The region of the U.S. many Americans Russians most admire have come from
 * The rock band the girl Sam will marry likes the most
 * The woman a man my sister envies hired will become his supervisor next week.
 * The region of the U.S. many Americans Russians most admire have come from is the Pacific Northwest.
 * The rock band the girl Sam will marry likes the most is playing tonight at the Civic Center.

So then consider the word 'fish'. It's one of several words in English that are--with one and the same spelling--both noun and transitive verb; the examples given above under the section titled Marklar all work, as does the word 'steer'.

Since 'fish' is a verb, you can construct a sentence with the word by itself. That's the case with 1 iteration. What follows are the sentences you get with 1 through 6 iterations: This last example relies on the noun phrase formation rule noted above: Since 'fish' is both a common noun and verb, you can use 'fish fish fish' as a noun phrase meaning "the fish that fish tend to fish". And since 'fish' is a transitive verb, you can apply this noun phrase as subject or object of the transitive verb, 'fish', and with either choice, you get the following 5-word sentence:
 * 1) Fish. (imperative: "Do some fishing")
 * 2) Fish fish. (two readings: a) imperative: "Do some fishing for fish"; b) indicative: "Fish tend to fish")
 * 3) Fish fish fish. (indicative: "Fish tend to fish for fish")
 * 4) Fish fish fish fish. (two readings: a) imperative: "Do some fishing for the fish that fish tend to fish"; b) indicative: "The fish that fish tend to fish themselves tend to fish")

5. Fish fish fish fish fish.

The sentence is ambiguous depending on whether the noun phrase, 'fish fish fish' is taken to be the subject or the object. Now consider the point about applying the formation rule recursively. If you use 'fish' as the first noun phrase, 'fish fish fish' as the second noun phrase, and use 'fish' as the verb phrase, then you get the following five-word noun phrase: 'fish fish fish fish fish'. It has the reading: "The fish that the fish that fish tend to fish tend to fish". And since this is a noun phrase, you can use it as either subject or object of the verb, 'fish', and what you get is a six-word sentence:

6. Fish fish fish fish fish fish.

Again, this is ambiguous and the reading depends on whether the 5-word noun phrase is taken to be subject or object. If subject, then the 6-word sentence is an indicative. If object, then the 6-word sentence is an imperative (telling you which kind of fish to fish).

In general, for any n, n consecutive repetitions of 'fish' will be a grammatical sentence of English.

I'd like some discussion of this general point. I'd tried to lay it out briefly in the "Other Words" section of the Buffalo page, but it was reverted by DoctorKubla. I don't think I got a fair shake. DoctorKubla recommended that I bring the issue up on this talk page before seeking to reintroduce what I'd written. So here you go. Thanks, Anamaeka (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Here's the diff of your edit, for reference.
 * The main problem isn't one of accuracy, it's a problem of WP:No original research (one of Wikipedia's most important policies. Read the "nutshell" and intro section of that policy, to get a clear idea about what it means). So, if you can find a WP:Reliable source that analyses the "fish" example, then we could include it here (or anywhere appropriate).
 * See the thread above, for further examples, where we've found citations for some of the "other words" currently included in the article.
 * Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks Quiddity ("This-ness", nice). I'm going to assume that the main thing that ought to be referenced is the formation rule for noun phrases that I mentioned above. If I can get a reference for that, I'll resubmit. The bulk of what I have to say would then just be an application of the referenced rule to the case of a word, like 'fish' or 'buffalo', that serves both as a plural noun phrase as well as a transitive verb. If there are any other matters in what I've said above that you think call for referencing, besides the formation rule in question, please let me know.
 * Thanks; 67.171.37.250 (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be difficult, but I think a lengthy digression into fish would require a reliable source that not only details the "fish" example but specifically links it to the "buffalo" sentence. And besides that, I don't think "fish" really works. If I were fishing for fish, I wouldn't say that I was "fishing fish". To me, that doesn't make sense without the "for". Fish might fish for fish, but they don't "fish fish". DoctorKubla (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * DoctorKubla, I think that being difficult by applying strict standards consistently is fine. But "fish" really does work. Regarding your point about "fishing fish", just take a look at Merriam-Webster's on-line entry for 'fish'. Look at the section for 'fish' as a verb. Under that, you'll find a sub-section for 'fish' as a transitive verb. In that sub-section you'll find uses of 'fish' as a transitive verb without the preposition, 'for'. One point of interest in all this is that there are words in our language that can be repeated consecutively as many times as you like with the result being a grammatical (if not true) sentence of the language. That's what's interesting to me. But beyond that, the fact is that fish do fish fish (there are fish that prey on other fish). And so the example of this grammatical phenomenon in the case of the word, 'fish', actually produces not only grammatical but true English sentences: just as true as that buffalo sometimes buffalo other buffalo... Anamaeka (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.37.250 (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right that it can be a transitive verb. Normally, however, it's metaphorical, such as fishing the last M&M out of the bottom of the bag.  Chrisrus (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And when it's not metaphorical, it usually means "to fish at a particular location"; e.g., "I fished the stream." Powers T 13:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the arguments against "fish fish fish...", "people people people...", and others are missing the point that a sentence does not have to make sense to be grammatically valid. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Buffalo x 8 wouldn't be of so much interest if it weren't only gramatically correct but also symantically plausible. This is why "Police police police" is closer than "dice dice dice".  They do have a zoo there, and they can be cantakerous animals, and there is such a thing as the department of internal affairs; but on the other hand, many of these computer generated sentences are not like Buffalo x 8 at all because, for example, can we visualize dice dicing dice?  What makes Buffalo x 8 interesting is the fact that it's semantically functional as well as grammatically valid. Chrisrus (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sentence Structure
So, after reading the parsed sentences over several times, I have come to the understanding that the sentence means "Buffalo bison (that) Buffalo bison bully, bully Buffalo bison". Is that correct? Because if so, I think that's a much clearer interpretation of it.--WikiDonn (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The NYS bison (that other) NYS bison bully (in turn) bully other NYS bison", yes. Chrisrus (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something...
How can "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" be a grammatically correct sentence if it doesn't have any punctuation? A sentence should be followed by a period, question mark, or exclamation mark, yes? It can't have zero grammar. What the first line of the article means is that "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." is a correct sentence. You can't say later that the period is implied and insert it as an interpretation. It necessarily has to be there for it to be a sentence. Squish7 (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Search for the word "comma" in the article, to find the explanation. :) –Quiddity (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Is really correct?
I do not understand why this sentence is correct: I expect Saxon's genitive, that is, «'s», and the third person in verb «buffalos». --Dejudicibus (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is correct. 'Buffalo' has three different meanings: Buffalo, a city in New York; Buffalo, the animal; Buffalo, the verb, as in, "I will buffalo through the door".
 * It makes sense without the following optional words, but this may help you with understanding the sentence:
 * "The buffalo from Buffalo who are buffaloed by buffalo from Buffalo, buffalo (verb) other buffalo from Buffalo."
 * I hope this makes sense! Newyorkadam (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

WikiWorld cartoon
I removed this image from the article a while ago, but it's been re-added, so I guess it's time to discuss it. See WP:WikiProject WikiWorld for context; basically, some guy made a bunch of cartoons about Wikipedia articles in 2007, and this is one of them. In my opinion, these images don't belong in article space, and this cartoon in particular does nothing to aid the reader's understanding of the subject, consisting as it does of direct quotes from (an earlier version of) the article. Is anyone with me on this? DoctorKubla (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think having it constitutes article improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think it's harmless, and also useful: illustrations can be helpful for readers with certain cognitive preferences. I see no reason to delete it, and would vote for a restoration Richardhod (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the image is relevant, helpful, appropriate, and should be restored. While I understand that the use of an image with such a casual tone may raise hackles in an encylopedic context, this article is on an anyway amusing and light subject. HGilbert (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

More uses of the same word
In introduction via title any number of people holding the same title (doctor, congressmen, captain etc.) can Introduce each other to each other IE. 6 doctors meeting 7 other doctors,(42 uses of the same word in sentance) "doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor, doctor." infective use of language but a "proper use" none the less, needs a page if not on or replacing this one...


 * sovos
 * I'd like to add a longer, though possibly inappropriate sentence: Fucking Fucking fuckers, fucking Fucking fuckers fucking fuck, fucking fuck fucking Fucking fuckers Chymb (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Examples in other languages?
Is there any room for examples in other languages? In Swedish there are, very common "Får får får?", but also less known "Var var var var var var var var var var var." which is extendable. 79.136.62.165 (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is about a particular phrase in English; I don't see how phrases in other languages are relevant. Perhaps if you look on the Wikipedia for Swedish? If such an article is not there, you could write one. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 20:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well there was a section called "Other words using the same pattern" so i just thought.. Because it doesn't look like there is any general article(?). 79.136.62.165 (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Extension
Following the Parse tree, it seems just as correct to use eleven words, rather than just eight, such as:

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo

(where we replicate the subject NP with the object NP). Although this may seem less grammatically interesting, it is still correct, and longer by 3 Buffalo.

Is there a maximum length to the number of buffalo that can appear sequentially in a sentence? If one accepted the archaic adjective (now replaced by 'buff'), that get's to 15..

Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.

The rephrasing would be:

Buff-coloured 'Buffalo bison' that buff-coloured 'Buffalo bison' bully also themselves bully Buff-coloured 'Buffalo bison' bullied by buff-coloured 'Buffalo bison'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20040302 (talk • contribs)


 * This article says, under "Usage", that the sequence of buffalos can be continued indefinitely – I can't quite get my head around it, but it involves nesting more buffalos into the existing sentence. Having accepted that


 * "bison that bison bully, themselves bully bison that bison bully"


 * we can go on to say that


 * "bison that bison that bison bully bully, themselves bully bison that bison that bison bully bully"


 * and so on. I think? Something like that. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes, I got there yesterday, having thought more about it.. it's the relative clause (...that bison bully) that allows for recursion, as the bison that are doing the bullying can have a relative clause likewise attached. If we parenthetise the relative clause, it sort of helps to see the infinite expansion...

Buffalo bufffalo ( Buffalo buffalo buffalo) buffalo Buffalo buffalo. Buffalo bufffalo ( Buffalo buffalo ( Buffalo buffalo ( Buffalo buffalo ( Buffalo buffalo [...] buffalo)  buffalo)  buffalo)  buffalo) buffalo Buffalo buffalo. In fact, the adjectival Buffalo (or my archaic 'buffalo' colour) are unnecessary. The basic sentence, "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo" can be expanded using the recursive relative clause, to "Buffalo ( buffalo ( buffalo ( buffalo buffalo) buffalo) buffalo) buffalo [buffalo].

So, using brackets as a capture, {R} as the point of recursion (of the captured clause), and [..] to represent the optional object, I got to the following:

1:   Buffalo!

2,3: Buffalo buffalo [buffalo].

4+: Buffalo (buffalo {R} buffalo) buffalo [buffalo].

I also saw that fish, and head (of cattle) work just as well.

Fish (fish {R} fish) fish [fish].

Head (head {R} head) head [head].

Actually, I consider 'head' to be better than buffalo, in that it is also a non-proper noun adjective. As in the 'head person' (leader). So, we could replicate Buffalo... in the article without needing to modify letter-case...

Head head head head head head head head. For these types of expansion, the plural of the noun must be the same as the singular, and there must be a homonymic infinitive verb. FYI, and most likely WP:OR, the AAAA... sentence structure led me to looking for ABABAB.... sentences..

Fish (head fish) head fish.. But to maintain the sequence, we have to swap the captured clause each time...

Fish (head (fish (head (fish head) fish) head) fish) head fish.

So then ABCABCABC was a bit more tricky to get the parsing correct...

Head (buffalo (fish (head buffalo) fish) head) buffalo fish.

Cattle, that bison (which are fished by fish that are bullied by cattle) head, bully fish.

This can also be parsed as dealing with a 'head' (leader) buffalo fish...

Head buffalo-fish (head buffalo fish) head buffalo-fish. (but not nearly as interesting).

(20040302 (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC))


 * Regarding your recent additions to the article – I really think we should keep that section very short and simple, because coming up with all these examples could be seen as original research. I don't know, though, I might be alone in this, and I can't be bothered starting an argument. But can you explain this one to me: "Rose Rose rose rose Rose". I don't see how "rose" can be a plural noun. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you are right. rose is not the past for raise. I have removed it. (20040302 (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)) Re. the section, I think that the Police sentence is not so relevant - but having a list of words is interesting. I like the section, and I think it's notable, albeit there is nothing there which is attributed. (20040302 (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC))
 * Anything which is not attributed can be removed at any time, because it is presumed not notable. It's wonderful that it's likeable and interesting to some, but if it's notable it should have a source.--~TPW 12:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Head
I'm unconvinced by 'head'; I know we talk about 'a head of cattle' but I don't think 'head' can be used to collectively refer to some cattle in this way. I thought perhaps I should get a second opinion on this, though. Anyone? --Oolong (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2014
shouldnt "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" be "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." ?

66.211.241.158 (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

❌ - We don't use full stops in titles ;-) - Arjayay (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ann Senghas Claim
Pinker said Senghas coined the phrase, but it was first written in 1972, and which point in time Senghas would only have been 8 years old. Perhaps someone should edit the article to include this doubt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalo editor (talk • contribs) 14:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Buffalo editor: done. The article now more clearly summarizes Rapaport's history article, which indicates that Senghas's coinage was independent.  I've also added material on an earlier coinage by Dmitri Borgmann, some of which was added to Rapaport's history only after it was last consulted as a source for this article. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Header
The header is wrong. The last buffalo shouldnt have a capital letter and the second to last should. God I feel so pedantic right now!


 * You're kind of right. There are two different valid orderings of upper-case and lower-case, and each have slightly different meanings. Maybe there are more meanings! I'll try to paraphrase the various meanings, while preserving the word order. However, I will say "bison from Buffalo" instead of "Buffalo bison".


 * "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" means "bison from Buffalo, that bison from Buffalo bully, themselves bully bison from Buffalo"


 * another version is:


 * "Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo", but that's slightly harder to understand. Buffalo (adverb) buffalo (noun) buffalo (verb) Buffalo(adverb) buffalo (noun) Buffalo (adverb) buffalo (noun) buffalo (verb). To understand this, consider "bison from Buffalo bully X". X is the noun, or Noun phrase, that are the victims of the bullying by bison from Buffalo. You could, for simplicity, replace X with "bison from London", but you can go further and say "which bison from London?". Answer, the bison from London that are bullied by bison from New York. i.e. the victims are the "bison from London that bison from New York bully".


 * The "that" is optional in English, so you can say "bison from London bison from New York bully". Finally, returning to the original word order, you can say: Buffalo bison bully London bison (that) New York bison bully. And then, you can replace 'London' and 'New York' with 'Buffalo'


 * Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 18:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2015
"Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo" is the title of singer/songwriter Chris Faroe's 2013 debut album.

DrudePJ (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Non-notable artist. Sam Sing! 19:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2014
The sentence example has the verbs, noun, and adverbs mixed up. It should be Buffalo (adverb) buffalo (noun) buffalo (verb) Buffalo(adverb) buffalo (noun) Buffalo (adverb) buffalo (noun) buffalo (verb).

220.233.41.204 (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Sing 07:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but the article's formulation of the sentence is correct, and follows the formulation found in the sources. Try looking at it again. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * other sources point out that there really isn't just one 'correct formulation', as the sentence is ambiguous. The number of correct formulations may be considered as an excersise 20040302 (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC) 00:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

ambiguity of parse.
The article appears to assert just one parsing approach to 8B. Whereas, there are others. Following the reduced (non-adjectival) 5B, it is clear that this may be parsed in several ways: etc. The ambiguity of parse is a salient aspect to this kind of phrase. (20040302 (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC))
 * Buffalo (that other) buffalo bully (themselves) bully buffalo.
 * Buffalo bully buffalo (that other) buffalo bully.
 * Buffalo (that other) buffalo (that other) buffalo bully (themselves) bully.
 * OK, I've updated the article to reflect the fact (which I hope we can all agree is fairly obvious rather than original research) that the sentence is syntactically ambiguous. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Why only 8 buffalo?
Here's a version with 9:

- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo. (Buffalo bison [who] Buffalo bison bully, bully Buffalo bison [who] Buffalo bison bully.)

Or even 13:

- Buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo. (Buffalo Buffalo bison [who] Buffalo Buffalo bison bully, bully [other] bison [who] Buffalo Buffalo bison bully.)

I specify that the bison are Buffalo-originating and presently Buffalo-residing bison, making them Buffalo Buffalo bison (as opposed to "Texan Buffalo" bison, who would be bison residing in Texas but which originated in Buffalo). Here's the same sentence but with a subject that hurts less to read:

- American Siberian cats [who] American Siberian cats bully, bully [other] cats [who] American Siberian cats bully.

It's needlessly specific but still grammatically correct... I think. Nawoa (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correct that there's no reason to stop at eight. As the Language Log post in the "External links" section confirms, any arbitrarily long string of "buffalo"s is grammatical.  If you wish we could mention this fact in the article.  However, there's probably no point in using something other than the 8-buffalo or 5-buffalo sentences as the article's title and main examples, since those two are probably the most widely encountered versions. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You can extend the sentence with not just the fact that some buffalo are from Buffalo, but some use specifically Buffalo-style buffaloing.


 * So, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." [Buffalo bison that Buffalo bison Buffalo-style buffalo, themselves Buffalo-style buffalo the Buffalo buffalo!]  174.119.113.31 (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

American English
This edit changed the lede claim that the sentence is valid in the "English language" into limiting it to "the[sic] American English". Apart from the fact that the edit summary (which basically claims that American English is not English) betrays heavy bias, I'd like to point out that "buffalo" as a verb does exist in neutral varieties of English, although according to the ODE, which the poster cited (note: this website provides the ODE, not the OED as the poster claimed), it means "to baffle" rather than "to intimidate". Since I believe the sentence works anyway even with the slight change in verb meaning, I've added the new meaning and restored the claim that it's valid in the English language. I hope there won't be a need for any further reverts after this clarification. LjL (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Was it really in Dmitri Borgmann's book?
I studied as a grad student under Bill Rapaport at SUNY@Buffalo (in AI, Computational Linguistsics, Knowledge Representation) from 1987-'91, and he claims to have come up with this. (Dr Rapaport's link in the biblio section is a good read.)

Perhaps Borgman (independantly, and earlier) came up with a buffalo X 5, but I find it hard to believe that buffalo x 8 appears in his 1967 book. Has anyone actually viewed this? I would be more prone to believe that Borgman reported on with "dogs dog dogs" and "dogs dogs dog dog dogs" and people ran with it.

Lizard1959 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

New York bison, New York bison bully, bully New York bison.
I wish I could remember where I first saw it, but this webspage has it; a very quick and easy way for me to grasp the meaning:

Buffalo, New York (adjective) = New York

buffalo, the animal (noun) = bison

buffalo (verb) = bully

yeilds:

New York bison, New York bison bully, bully New York bison.

Could this be added to the article? --71.81.74.166 (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

"More easily decoded, though semantically equivalent..."
Is there a source for the "more easily decoded" version in the lead section? I don't pretend to be a professional linguist, but I was surprised by the chunks of white space and the way that "themselves" is bracketed but "other" isn't.

It strikes me that we could coin an even simpler paraphrase just by switching the word order a bit ... "Buffalo from Buffalo, bullied by [other] buffalo from Buffalo, [themselves] bully buffalo from Buffalo" ... is there any reason that version wouldn't be just as semantically equivalent? Looking forward to linguistic instruction in these matters! -- Lemuellio (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Much of a muchness, as far as I can see...I like your formulation. One minor advantage of the present wording is that it does not require commas. And yes, it would be advantageous to use a paraphrase drawn from a reliable source! Interestingly, some of these use a different meaning of buffalo, that is, to bewilder. E.g.
 * "NY State bison, that other NY State bison befuddle, themselves bewilder yet other NY State bison" 1
 * "Buffalo bulls from the city of Buffalo whom other buffalo bulls from Buffalo bewilder bewilder yet other buffalo bulls from Buffalo" 2
 * "Buffalo that are bullied by other buffalo are themselves bullying buffalo (in the city of Buffalo", or "the buffalo from Buffalo which are buffaloed by buffalo from Buffalo, buffalo (verb) other buffalo from Buffalo" 3 Cl ea n Co py talk 18:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2018
The figure caption of the picture with two buffalos reads "This sentence supposes they have a history of such bullying with other buffalo.."

But it should be "This sentence supposes they have a history of being bullied by other buffalo.." 98.254.61.190 (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  05:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Unpunctuated
This is a perfectly good word: See Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries. Cl ea n Co py talk 00:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This is nonsense.
This is nonsense. It needs a whom or that. It should be Buffalo buffalo whom Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Buffaloian bison, whom Buffaloian bison bully, bully Buffalonian bison.

Buffaloian bison, Buffaloian bison bully, bully Buffalonian bison makes no sense. 94.197.120.153 (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It does seem to be informal English, but I think it is fairly common to miss out the "that". For example, "the grass cows eat is green" should be "the grass that cows eat is green", but the first form doesn't sound completely wrong to my uneducated British English ears. I strongly agree with the above commenter that the article needs a version where the "buffalo" are translated into distinct words: "London cats London cats bully bully London cats". Quietbritishjim (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Observing that people commonly speak in grammatically incorrect ways does not support the notion that the word "buffalo" repeated an arbitrary number of times forms a grammatically correct sentence. Absent any articles, conjunctions, determiners, or prepositions, the sentence, as written, is gibberish.  At best, it serves as an illustrative example of the importance of words which are not "buffalo." 68.119.34.109 (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't try to buffalo us. We're from Buffalo. Only Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. Cl ea n Co py talk 00:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a pity, because we know that bullies go on to bully others. Sadly, it is all too likely that buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. Cl ea n Co py talk 00:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * My apologies, Clean Copy. In the subject of that last sentence, I wasn't specific enough about which buffalo I meant.  More particularly, then: Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.  Cl ea n Co py talk 00:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * OK. I can accept that. But as it comes down to the same bison being involved on both ends, what you're really saying is that Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.  Cl ea n Co py talk 01:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You've reduced what was once a complex phrase to a completely self-evident tautology. What a pity. (Sigh)  Cl ea n Co py talk 01:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This is nonsense. Your opinion, and all the responses to your opinion, are completely and utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia. -- Jibal (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree it's nonsense. I thought about it for some time, and it stops making sense after five "buffalos". Perhaps English can informally drop words in some other instances, but in this case it just doesn't make sense without a "whom" or "that" other article after the first five "buffalos". It just doesn't. I can say that, not as an English student (I'm not), but as a life long reader of English. Buffalo, buffalo buffalo Buffalo, Buffalo makes sense. But just adding "duffalo buffalo" doesn't mean that the second party also buffalo Buffalo buffalo. The only way the longer for makes sense is if the word "buffalo" was also taken to mean "blustery" or "strong" or something, in which case the buffalo buffalo from buffalo buffalo the other buffalo buffalo from Buffalo.

It doesn't make sense to say "Illinois cows shit on Illinois cows shit on Illinois cows". You MUST say "THAT shit on Illinois cows", or "whom". It just doesn't make sense otherwise, "informal English" be damned. I think someone has added extra "buffalos" here, or mistaken the intended meaning. I notice the illustration talking about Rocehester cows only goes as far as saying "Buffalo, buffalo buffalo Buffalo, buffalo". Anywaym leave it if you like (I'm sure you will, who wants to ruin a fun idea with things like truth and accuracy?), but that doesn't make it a grammatically correct sentence. Not as described here, anyway. Not unless they are BUFFALO Buffalo buffalo buffalo-ing BUFFALO Buffalo buffalo. And that's still only seven.

71.255.115.196 (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You've mangled it. 'Ilinois cows Ilinois cows shit on shit on Ilinois cows' is the sentence you're looking for, and it might not be the easiest to parse, but it's entirely grammatically correct. Oolong (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

New York
There are dozens of places named Buffalo. Why should the place be Buffalo, New York rather than Buffalo in some state that still has a few Buffalo?  Randall Bart    Talk   06:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Because Buffalo,boovmj York is the best known of them, obviously. -- Jibal (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they are referring to Buffalo, SD. It is about 55 miles from Bison, SD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.197.48 (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Grammatical error
In the following paragraph the first sentence does not have a period at the end, making it a sentence that is not grammatically correct. : "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" is a grammatically correct sentence in American English, often presented as an example of how homonyms and homophones can be used to create complicated linguistic constructs through lexical ambiguity. It has been discussed in literature in various forms since 1967, when it appeared in Dmitri Borgmann's Beyond Language: Adventures in Word and Thought. Shadow qwerty (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @Talk:Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo Yes the word "unpunctuated" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unpunctuated) is used in this article, but why point that out?
 * @Shadow qwerty: So what about this article are you saying should be changed?
 * I woke up today and realized complete sentences:
 * One's ones won.
 * One's one won.
 * One one won.
 * As in, someone's cards of value one won the game, or a player's one(s) ("one" as in the game of cricket) won the game. I Googled this sentence and only found "One's ones won once." at https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/379542-spellin-3.html; I found more results for the complete sentence "One one won." e.g., "One-One won one." --User123o987name (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)