"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

[Stan]

Source

"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." is a grammatically correct sentence used as an example of how homonyms and homophones can be used to create complicated constructs. It has been discussed in literature since 1972 when the sentence was used by William J. Rapaport, an associate professor at the University at Buffalo.[1] It was posted to Linguist List by Rapaport in 1992.[2] It was also featured in Steven Pinker's 1994 book The Language Instinct.[3]

The sentence is unpunctuated and uses three different readings of the word "buffalo". In order of their first use, these are

a. the city of Buffalo, New York (or any other place named "Buffalo"), which is used as an adjective in the sentence and is followed by the animal;

n. the noun buffalo, an animal, in the plural (equivalent to "buffaloes" or "buffalos"), in order to avoid articles;

v. the verb "buffalo" meaning to bully, confuse, deceive, or intimidate.

Marking each "buffalo" with its use as shown above gives

Buffaloa buffalon Buffaloa buffalon buffalov buffalov Buffaloa buffalon.

Thus, the sentence when parsed reads as a description of the pecking order in the social hierarchy of buffaloes living in Buffalo:

[Those] (Buffalo buffalo) [whom] (Buffalo buffalo) buffalo, buffalo (Buffalo buffalo).

[Those] buffalo(es) from Buffalo [that are intimidated by] buffalo(es) from Buffalo intimidate buffalo(es) from Buffalo.

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

THE buffalo FROM Buffalo WHO ARE buffaloed BY buffalo FROM Buffalo ALSO buffalo THE buffalo FROM Buffalo.

"Buffalo buffalo (main clause Subject) [which the] Buffalo buffalo (subordinate clause Direct Object) buffalo [subordinate clause Verb] buffalo [main clause Verb] Buffalo buffalo [main clause Direct Object]."

It may be revealing to read the sentence replacing all instances of the animal buffalo with "people" and the verb buffalo with "intimidate". The sentence then reads

"Buffalo people [whom] Buffalo people intimidate [also happen to] intimidate Buffalo people."

Preserving the meaning more closely, substituting the synonym "bison" for "buffalo" (animal), "bully" for "buffalo" (verb) and leaving "Buffalo" to mean the city, yields

'Buffalo bison Buffalo bison bully bully Buffalo bison', or:

'Buffalo bison whom other Buffalo bison bully themselves bully Buffalo bison'.

To further understand the structure of the sentence, one can replace "Buffalo buffalo" with any number of noun phrases. Rather than referring to "Buffalo buffalo" intimidating other "Buffalo buffalo", one can use noun phrases like "Alley cats", "Junkyard dogs", and "Sewer rats". The sentence then reads

"Alley cats [whom] Junkyard dogs intimidate [also happen to] intimidate Sewer rats."

This has the same sentence structure as 'Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo'.

[edit]Ambiguity

If the capitalization is ignored, the sentence can be read another way:

Buffaloa buffalon buffalov Buffaloa buffalon Buffaloa buffalon buffalov.

That is, bison from Buffalo intimidate (other) bison from Buffalo that Bison from Buffalo intimidate.

[edit]Parsing difficulty

Other than the confusion caused by the homophones, the sentence is difficult to parse for several reasons:

The use of "buffalo" as a verb is not particularly common and itself has several meanings.

The construction in the plural makes the verb "buffalo", like the city, rather than "buffaloes".

The choice of "buffalo" rather than "buffaloes" as the plural form of the noun makes it identical to the verb.

There are no grammatical cues from syntactically significant words such as articles (again possible because of the plural construction) or "that".

The absence of punctuation makes it difficult to read the flow of the sentence.

Consequently, it is a garden path sentence, i.e., it cannot be parsed by reading one word at a time without backtracking.

The statement includes a universal predicate about a class and also introduces a later class (the buffalo that are intimidated by intimidated buffalo) that may, but need not, be distinct from the first class.

Parsing is ambiguous if capitalization is ignored. Using another adjectival sense of 'buffalo' ('cunning', derived from the sense 'to confuse'), the following alternative parsing is obtained: 'Buffalo bison [that] bison bully, [also happen to] bully cunning Buffalo bison' (that is, the head of the verb phrase occurs one 'buffalo' earlier).

The relative clause is center embedded, a construction which is hard to parse.

[edit]Extension

There is nothing special about eight "buffalo"s; indeed, for any n≥1, the sentence with "buffalo" repeated n times is grammatically correct (according to Chomskyan theories of grammar). The shortest is 'Buffalo!', meaning either 'Bully (someone)!', or 'Look, there are buffalo here!', or 'Behold, it is the city of Buffalo!'.[4]

[Neil D]

Me thinks you wax eloquently and a bit too long on this subject....

[olger]

There goes English's chances of being the language of Heaven.

og

[Stan]

This is another example...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while..._on_the_teacher

[SivartM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_that_is_is_that_that_is_not_is_not_is_that_it_it_is

[Neil D]

Did you take an obtuse pill or just wanna be onery?