Hoax Museum Archives
Hoax Museum Hall of Fame
|
Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo
Status: Linguistic puzzle
Check out these parsing challenges over at linguistlist.org. It took me a good 15 or 20 minutes to figure out why they make sense. (Though I'm sure some people will figure them out immediately.) The first one is this sentence:Dogs dogs dog dog dogs.
It's a legitimate english sentence. To figure out how this is so, it helps to compare it to the sentence: Cats dogs chase catch mice. (They both share the same structure.)
The linguist list folks then point out that the word 'buffalo' can also serve as the basis for a similar sentence:
Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
And if you consider the possibility of Buffalo in the city of Buffalo being 'Buffalo buffalo', you can get this sentence:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Linguist list actually strings 10 'buffalo' together as one sentence, but I think only 8 can be used, since to 'Buffalo buffalo' can't be used as a verb. (via Reddit)
Posted By: Alex | Date: Sat Jul 22, 2006 | Permalink |
Total Comments: 32
Category: Literature/Language
Category: Literature/Language
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Although any writer who wouldn't want his readers to end up in a mental hospital, might have considered the use of punctuation marks. 
(after the first and third dog)
Did take me a couple of maddening minutes to figure it out. (btw. never heard about to buffalo before)
Posted by FrostBird in The Old Continent, Chaos Kingdom on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 01:57 PM
(after the first and third dog)
Did take me a couple of maddening minutes to figure it out. (btw. never heard about to buffalo before)
I told my wife about this. She had never heard of 'to buffalo' before either. But I've definitely heard it used before.
Posted by Alex in San Diego on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 03:24 PM
I think I like "Geese geese goose goose geese" even better
Posted by Vryce on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 06:45 PM
Let's see if linguists can figure this one out:
Retards retards retard retard retards.
Posted by Dee Dee Dee on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 09:28 PM
Retards retards retard retard retards.
Yeah because the sentence "Cats dogs chase catch mice" makes perfect sense.
Posted by Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 09:35 PM
These are called "embedded sentences." As when parsing any sentence, it helps if you first look for the verb(s) and the subject of each verb.
These tricks ("Dogs dogs dog dog dogs," etc.) work because many words in English can function as verbs, nouns, adjectives, and sometimes adverbs, without needing any inflection or other modification.
In his book "The Language Instinct" (published in the mid-1990s), Steven Pinker cites the example, "Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." Here "buffalo" is serving as a common noun (a large animal), an adjective (meaning of or from a city in New York state), and a transitive verb (to "buffalo" means to confuse, bewilder, or astonish). The noun "buffalo" appears as both a subject and an object. The neat trick, and one that would be impossible in some languages, is that all these distinctions are indicated purely by word order.
Pinker also cites this "triply-embedded" sentence: "Bulldogs bulldogs bulldogs fight fight fight."
(Pinker is on the faculty at Yale, as you might have guessed.)
Posted by Big Gary in Glen Ellyn, Illinois on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:25 AM
These tricks ("Dogs dogs dog dog dogs," etc.) work because many words in English can function as verbs, nouns, adjectives, and sometimes adverbs, without needing any inflection or other modification.
In his book "The Language Instinct" (published in the mid-1990s), Steven Pinker cites the example, "Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." Here "buffalo" is serving as a common noun (a large animal), an adjective (meaning of or from a city in New York state), and a transitive verb (to "buffalo" means to confuse, bewilder, or astonish). The noun "buffalo" appears as both a subject and an object. The neat trick, and one that would be impossible in some languages, is that all these distinctions are indicated purely by word order.
Pinker also cites this "triply-embedded" sentence: "Bulldogs bulldogs bulldogs fight fight fight."
(Pinker is on the faculty at Yale, as you might have guessed.)
Citizen Premier, that sentence does make sense. It means the cats, which dogs chase, catch mice. Does that make more sence?
Posted by Sakano in Ohio on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:34 AM
Gah, typo. I meant sense.
Posted by Sakano in Ohio on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:36 AM
buffalo buffalo, buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
I suppose if you were adressing the buffalo from buffalo ...
Posted by Dracul on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:54 AM
I suppose if you were adressing the buffalo from buffalo ...
Raouls Raoul Raoul's Raouls, no? It is so obvious, my main man. Rrrraoul
Posted by Raoul on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:58 AM
>>Bulldogs bulldogs bulldogs fight fight fight.<<
I'm having a hard time getting my brain brain brain around around around this this this.
Posted by Alex in San Diego on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:38 AM
I'm having a hard time getting my brain brain brain around around around this this this.
Whaooo I got it !
Hard for me... I'm used to different sentences in english !
For instance: Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck is clear as cristal for me... I hear that quite often in american movies
Posted by Eric in France on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:57 PM
Hard for me... I'm used to different sentences in english !
For instance: Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck is clear as cristal for me... I hear that quite often in american movies
Thanks Sakano, I do get it now.
Posted by Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:31 PM
A couple of these that I like are:
In discussing grammar:
John, where Bill had had "had" had had "Had had." "Had had" had had the teacher's preference.
Another, but this time without punctuation:
that that is is that that is not not is is that it it is
Posted by Jim O'Connell in Tokyo on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:51 PM
In discussing grammar:
John, where Bill had had "had" had had "Had had." "Had had" had had the teacher's preference.
Another, but this time without punctuation:
that that is is that that is not not is is that it it is
There's another classic...
The player kicked the ball kicked him.
Patterns exactly like 'The player (who was) thrown the ball kicked Tom.'
There is of course the deadly 'triple embedded' sentence, which computer parsers have no difficulty with, but which human languages tend to reject.
'The cat the dog chased ate the rat' is pretty okay for most speakers...but...
'The rat the cat the dog chased bit ran away' is almost unsayable, much less understandable.
Yes, I think about this crap for a living. Parents, don't let your children go into academia.
Posted by Edward on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 11:23 PM
The player kicked the ball kicked him.
Patterns exactly like 'The player (who was) thrown the ball kicked Tom.'
There is of course the deadly 'triple embedded' sentence, which computer parsers have no difficulty with, but which human languages tend to reject.
'The cat the dog chased ate the rat' is pretty okay for most speakers...but...
'The rat the cat the dog chased bit ran away' is almost unsayable, much less understandable.
Yes, I think about this crap for a living. Parents, don't let your children go into academia.
Nice, Edward! Your rats, cats, and dogs had me stumped for a minute:)
Jim O'Connell: I think yours actually does have me stumped... Check my solution below - am I close? (I've replaced 'that' with 'which' where possible for clarity.)
That which is, is that which is not 'not is'; is that it? It is.
It that's right, this could be taken still further:
That which is, is that which is, [and] not that which is not; that which is not [is ] not that which is. Is that it? It is not: that which is not that which is not is not that which is. That is it! Is it?
Giving:
that that is is that that is not that that is not that that is not not that that is is that it it is not that that is not that that is not is not that that is that is it is it
Yeah! Parse that, MoFo!
Posted by outeast on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 02:20 AM
Jim O'Connell: I think yours actually does have me stumped... Check my solution below - am I close? (I've replaced 'that' with 'which' where possible for clarity.)
That which is, is that which is not 'not is'; is that it? It is.
It that's right, this could be taken still further:
That which is, is that which is, [and] not that which is not; that which is not [is ] not that which is. Is that it? It is not: that which is not that which is not is not that which is. That is it! Is it?
Giving:
that that is is that that is not that that is not that that is not not that that is is that it it is not that that is not that that is not is not that that is that is it is it
Yeah! Parse that, MoFo!
Oops, let me close them tar Eyetalics...
Posted by outeast on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 02:23 AM
Now that my brain is fried, it's off to work I go. 
Posted by Christopher in Joplin, Missouri on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 03:49 AM
punctuation could make all of these sentences easier decipher, I would have caught on two minutes in rather than ten
Posted by Blood For Nothing in Somewhere in the Arctic on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:34 AM
I question whether these are actually valid sentences since they do not have the proper punctuation.
Posted by RebelSponge in Ft. Worth on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:48 AM
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >