Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
Note to the Mods: This is NOT Spam.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo is a grammatically valid sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_bu … lo_buffalo - All the information -
Discuss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_bu … lo_buffalo - Listen to it from 0:00 until 0:13. It's so funny 1bigsmile1
i like how it gets lower but yes, it is rather funny
. and lower
. and lower
Last edited by Kaosslasher (May 2 2011 1:17:19 pm)
I've heard of this before.
It's supposed to mean this:
The city of Buffalo's buffalo, who the city of Buffalo's buffalo bully*, bully* the city of Buffalo's buffalo.
*buffalo can also be a verb, meaning "to bully [someone]."
I thought it was a load of poo back then, and my opinion of it remains the same today. Calling this sentence syntactically correct is a stretch, as I don't think the adjective phrase (buffalo #3,4,&5) can realistically stand on its own with the preceeeing "that/who" implied. I test this by substituting words from the sentence out with other words sharing the same part of speech.
Minneapolis bison Fargo buffalo bully harass Milwaukee bison.
Put the "that" in there and the syntax is far less ambiguous:
Minneapolis bison that Fargo buffalo bully harass Milwaukee bison.
Semantically, the sentence is utter nonsense because the subject, direct object, and adjective clause's subject are all the same plural noun and all refer to the same specific instance of buffalo. This makes the adjective clause redundant. It's an illogical circle of buffalo bullying themselves, with none of the buffalo acting as the bully's victim.
As a bonus, consider that using "buffalo" as a transitive verb (synonymous with bully) is highly obscure, if not archaic.
Mix all of this together and you have an award-winning recipe for poo.
TL;DR: This sentence is loved by grammar trolls everywhere.
Last edited by jakery (May 2 2011 3:20:26 pm)
Doesn't every sentence need a subject and a verb to be a valid sentence? That's awkward.
apparently buffalo is a verb and 2 types of nouns.
"Sometimes failing a leap of faith is better than inching forward"
- ShinsukeIto
Offline
Doesn't every sentence need a subject and a verb to be a valid sentence? That's awkward.
Buffalo University buffalo'ed a buffalo who baffalo'ed a buffalo. Ect.
apparently buffalo is a verb and 2 types of nouns.
The capitalized Buffalo is a city. It could mean Buffalo, New York, or Buffalo, Minnesota, or possibly others. So "Buffalo buffalo" means, "buffalo from the city of Buffalo."
It's in the dictionary, but I've never heard anyone use "buffalo" as the verb meaning, "to bully" outside of the buffalo^8 sentence.
Last edited by jakery (May 2 2011 3:09:59 pm)
Old news is old
Old news is old
I'm pretty dumbfounded by how much I wrote in my reply; I was in a very awful 3-and-a-half hour meeting (no exaggeration--literally a 210-minute meeting) and writing that post on my iPhone was how I stayed sane.
Yes, old news is old.
Last edited by jakery (May 2 2011 3:27:23 pm)
The best explanation:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv-fMZgyuaw[/youtube]
Offline
o0o
It makes so much sense to me nao....
TIME2CONFUSE MY FRIENDS
>:D
I hate tall signatures.
Offline
I've now read buffalo so many times that I don't think it's a real word anymore.
Thanks a lot, Kaosslasher.
So 'I'll buffalo you' is a valid sentence?
Offline
Yes, if buffalo is referring to abuse/bullying then yes
[ Started around 1738385494.0531 - Generated in 0.056 seconds, 14 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.57 MiB (Peak: 1.75 MiB) ]