Talk:Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

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)

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)

(edit conflict) 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)

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)

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:

• 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.

etc. The ambiguity of parse is a salient aspect to this kind of phrase. (20040302 (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC))

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)

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

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)  Randall Bart   Talk  06:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)