Talk:Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo/Archive 1

message: On this page, both "buffalo" and "American buffalo" are used to refer to bison.  As far as I know, this is incorrect and should be changed.  I'm not doing it myself because I'm rather inexperienced, and would rather get confirmation of this first.
72.66.77.52 01:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffalo vs. Bison 

message: Regarding the fish-and-chips example under English: surely adding quotation marks in the initial part of the phrase totally defeats the point of the sentence, namely "wouldn't it be better if there *were* quotation marks"?  I'm going to remove them, do feel free to discuss this if you think I'm incorrect. 
Philosophicles 13:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fish-and-chips 

message: Why delete? What would be the reason?
And wouldn't it be nice to add some audio clips (e.g. in the other languages section) so emphasis, tonality and accent can become more clear?
Emmaneul 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a great idea.  We should get the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia here.  violet/riga (t) 14:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Please forgive me my poor English, but I cannot parse the example from the ext. reference  in the way it was written there. I stumbled on the fourth level:
How come "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo" means "American bison habitually bamboozled by members of their own species (that is, buffalo whom other buffalo regularly buffalo) characteristically engage in bamboozlement."? Namely, I fail to see how passive voice comes into play here. Please help. `'mikka (t) 23:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [The] [buffalo=bison] [that other] [buffalo=bison] [buffalo=bamboozle] [engage in] [buffalo=bambooling]. HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! that's exactly the example from our article truncated. The examples from this blog were the base of [the book]. Can someone verify whether the buffalo sentence is in there, so that it may be a solid reference to this article? And an improvement, too, since we can describe a sentence of arbitrary length. (Now unfortunately it is not allowed, since blogs are not valid sources ) `'mikka (t) 23:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo? 

message: A pub - the Hare and Hounds - has a new pub sign painted.  But the painter accidentally leaves out the spaces between Hare and and and and and Hounds.  In writing to complain about this error, the pub owner's typewriter develops a fault such that in his letter, there is a 'Q' between 'Hare' and 'and', and 'and' and 'and', and 'and' and 'and', and 'and'  and 'and', and 'and' and 'and', and 'and' and 'Hounds'.  By conjuring up increasingly unlikely events, you can construct a valid sentence with any number of consecutive 'and's in it. SteveBaker 03:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In your example, putting the word in quotes makes it lose its original meaning. It is now used as a noun, and no longer is a conjunction. The Buffalo sentence is special in that "Buffalo" still perfectly maintains its grammatical and contextual status. Mchmike 23:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hare and and and and and Hounds. 

message: If Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo, then there is a cycle in the directed graph consisting of vertices that represent Buffalo buffalo where a directed edge goes from Buffalo buffalo A to Buffalo buffalo B if Buffalo buffalo A buffaloes Buffalo buffalo B, provided that there is at least one but not infinitely many Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo.  Synesthetic 06:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyclic Buffaloing 

message: That's all I have to say about that.--Mike Selinker 06:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  Either this or exploding sheep. -- the GREAT Gavini 08:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also exploding whale. Shawnc 10:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely agree, best article EVAR. --Suleyman Habeeb 08:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. --Broux 18:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I love it!!! Flutefluteflute 17:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  best article title ever 

message: sentences like this have been around for far longer than 1992, as claimed in the article.  when i attended Hampshire College Summer Studies in Math/Cognitive Science in 1984 and 1985, sentences like "buffalo buffalo buffalo" (and longer variants) were commonly used to test parsers that students wrote (usually in Lisp).  other variants were "fish fish fish", "char char char" ("char" is a type of fish) and "French french French".
Benwing 07:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin 

message: This is what I've got so far, and it makes little or no sence to me:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Bison   confuse Buffalo bison   confuse bison   Buffalo bison.
Buffalo confuse Buffalo bison who confuse bison, Buffalo bison.
I think it's a who, I thought whom's only come after prepositions.
:The second "bufflo" isn't confuse, it's bison. The sentance becomes "Buffalo bison Buffalo bison confuse confuse Bufflo bison". With other words, it becomes "Buffalo bison (that other) Bufflo Bison confuse, (themselves) confuse Buffalo Bison". The bison are confused by bison and confuse other bison. If that doesn't help, look at the example given earlier on this page, maybe that will (with boys and girls instead of buffalo). Salur 10:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still can't understand it 

message: There are three classes of buffalo mentioned, with a pecking order: the "top" buffaloes intimidate the "middle" buffaloes, who in turn intimidate the "bottom" buffaloes.
Buffalo buffalo (middle) which Buffalo buffalo (top) buffalo(verb) 
buffalo(verb) Buffalo buffalo (bottom).
The top line is the subject of the sentence. That is, the sentence is primarily about telling us what the middle buffaloes do. The second half of the top line qualifies these middle buffaloes, telling us that they are the buffaloes who are intimidated by other buffaloes (i.e. the top buffaloes).
Now that the top line has explained who we are talking about (the middle buffaloes), the bottom line tells us what they actually do - they intimidate other buffaloes (i.e. the bottom buffaloes).
--Mahemoff 00:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Explanation Based on Pecking Order 

message: About "other languages" section ... I found this discription besides "niwa niwa niwa niwatori ga iru". I am a native Japanese speaker, but have never heard such possible interpretations. It should be read in one sole way, "niwa (garden) niwa (at ...) niwa (two + counting suffix for birds) niwatori (chickin) ga (presenting the topic = here, "niwatori") iru (be, lay)". I would like to know what was the source.
Not exactly same to "BbBbbbBb", due to similarity in a phrase comes from writing, not from its pronunciation, here is another Japanese phrase "子子子子子子子子子子子子"; though it is not the way to write this phrase, it can be read "neko no ko no koneko; shishi no ko no kojishi" (pussycat, as a child of a cat; kojishi (lionkid) as a child of a lion). It appeared as an episode of Ono no Takamura in Kodansho. Somehow pedantic, but well known, even not so much as "niwa niwa".  --Aphaia 10:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  as many as ninety-two possible interpretations. ?? 

message: Is it worth noting that Boris Johnson said "Badgers badgers badger badger badgers" and "Dogs dogs dog dog dogs" on HIGNFY? He explained the structure with the sentence "Men women love love women". --Adam (Talk) 12:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  `'mikka (t) 17:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Boris merit a mention? 

message: Would someonelike to write the hebrew example in the hebrew alphabet and list the roots.RuthieK 13:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. ColinFine 17:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew 

message: The article currently suggests that  the "correct" punctuation is thus:
:Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Both of these commas are incorrect, just as they would be in this sentence with parallel structure:
:Men, women love, love men.
Perhaps the intent is to suggest the prosody or phrasing that one would use while saying the sentence aloud, but it is simply incorrect to suggest that those commas belong there. —johndburger 14:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Punctuation
 

message: Isn't plural form of "buffalo" (animal) buffalos?
cause this sound ungrammatic to me:
[Some] buffalo[s] [from] Buffalo, [who are intimidated by other buffalo[s] from Buffalo],[also themselves] intimidate [other different] buffalo[s] from Buffalo. --Shandristhe azylean 14:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that buffalo pluralizes the same way that antelope, cattle and moose do. Jsbillings 14:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wiktionary, buffalo is one possible way of pluralize w:buffalo (together with buffaloes and buffalos) (Liberatore, 2006). 17:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  plural form 

message: I'm thinking of asking User:Xiorlanth directly since he/she added it but can someone help me make sense of this:
:In Malay lovers can say "Sayang, sayang, sayang sayang sayang. Sayang sayang sayang?", which translates to "Darling, I love you. Do you love me?". This is a true homophone as the same word is used for pronoun and verb. The person being asked can even reply "Sayang," or "Sayang sayang sayang," in return.
It's been a while since I've used my Malay much but I can't think why there is two sayangs (sayang, sayang,) in the first sentence. Unless it's supposed to be saying "Darling, darling, I love you" in which case we should make this clear... Or am I missing something? Nil Einne 14:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malay 

message: I was looking at this article, and noticed a (basic) grammatical mistake in the 'Fuck' example (because it was the only one I could actually understand.)
The sentence read;
"Fuck! Fucking fuckers fucking fucked!"
until (just as I was about to) someone fixed it to;
"Fuck! Fucking fucker's fucking fucked!"
Considering this, is there a possibility that most of the examples in the article are flawed? I, personally think that most of them seem to be incorrect (e.g. I would have capitalised Buffalo at different places in the sentence.)
: I think "Fucking fuckers fucking fucked" is in simple past tense with a plural subject, while "Fucking fucker's fucking fucked" has a singular subject in either present perfect simple or simple present tense, right? Shawnc 16:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or "Fucks fucks fuck fuck fucks." —Caesura(t) 05:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammatical mistakes 

message: I believe the more precise term for the different usage of the word is "homonym" not "homophone".
: Well maybe...
:* Homonyms are words that either sound the same or are spelled the same but which have different meanings.
:* Homographs are words that are spelled the same but which have different meanings. eg Bow (of a ship - pronounced like 'bough') and Bow (and arrow - pronounced like 'beau').  All Homographs are by definition also Homonyms.
:* Homophones are words that sound the same but which have different meanings. eg To, Too and Two.  All Homophones are also Homonyms.
: But Buffalo, buffalo and buffalo are spelled alike and sound alike - so they are Homophones and Homographs and Homonyms.  To call them homophones is to miss that they are also spelled alike and to call them homographs would miss the fact that they are pronounced the same way.  Calling them homonyms is a little vague since you don't know whether the words are spelled alike or sound alike or both.  Whichever word you choose misses a little of the information - but in this case, all three are correct. I suppose you could argue that the city of Buffalo is always capitalised so it's not a homograph of buffalo (the animal) or buffalo (the verb) - so I guess you could just about maybe kinda uber-pedant your way into arguing that homograph is out of the running - and I suppose that would make homophone fractionally more precise than homonym but that's one hell of a stretch. SteveBaker 16:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  homophones 

message: Good job explaining the meaning, it was certainly difficult (and intended thus), but rewarding. It also for some reason reminded me of:
*Smurf smurf smurf.
*Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich.
*Badger badger badger.
w3rd. --216.9.250.6 17:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article r0x0rz my s0x0rz!!1! 

message: I have never seen 'buffalo' used as a verb. Is this a US English word rather than an English verb? Rob cowie 17:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard of the term before, but perhaps only from US sources.  It's certainly not in common usage.  violet/riga (t) 17:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wiktionary suggests "US, slang" for this verb. Shawnc 18:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the verb recognised in the UK? 

message: The following example was deleted as original research
*The only sentence in English that has 'because' three times in successive order: Some people say that one cannot begin a sentence with because because because is a conjunction. However, the preceding claim is incorrect: There is no "only" sentence having three consecutive occurrences of the word "because", because "because" can be used three times in a row in any number of valid sentences. Furthermore, because "because because because" is valid, this sentence goes on to show that "because because because because" is valid. And because "because because because because" is valid, *this* sentence shows that "because because because because because" is valid. And so forth.
Howevere I decided it is worth saving for history, because it reveals the power of quotation to create sentences of this type, — which is already present in the classical "had had had" example. `'mikka (t) 17:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Because because because 

message: Should we just move this to Buffalo sentence?  violet/riga (t) 15:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. —Keenan Pepper 18:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buffalo sentence

message: Keep the cool title but make several redirect pages from terms like "multiple buffalos" "buffalo 8" Flutefluteflute 18:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: I put up an image of a (simplified) parse tree, and added it to the article.  I'd like to have the explanation make use of the image, but haven't the time right now.  Other editors should feel free to fiddle with the sizing, caption, etc., or let me know about ways to improve the parse tree.   By the way, as indicated in the caption, I think referring to relative clause, or even English relative clauses could improve the explanation. —johndburger 02:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can SVG the image, but I'd like to know that it's correct first. Any commentary on John's commentary, welcome as commentary. -- nae'blis 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're after commentary commentary?  Hopefully it won't be contrary commentary commentary, because we may then require contrary commentary commentary commentary.  violet/riga (t) 12:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The parse tree is Really really Really really really really Really really helpful. A great addition to the article. - Nunh-huh 12:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parse tree 

message: Here's a trick... every time you see the animal buffalo you can start a "Buffalo buffalo buffalo" phrase like so:  
Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo.  Etc.  Synesthetic 03:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even More Buffalo 

message: I've been informed by Professor Rapaport via email that he started using the sentence in 1972, while others have been using it even earlier. Hopefully a citation will be made available shortly. Shawnc 12:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work.  violet/riga (t) 12:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Citation is now available and has been added. Shawnc 14:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1972 origin or earlier 

message: Can anyone provide citation that the buffalo from Buffalo are being buffaloed by buffalo from Buffalo, or indeed that the aforementioned buffalo from Buffalo are themselves buffaloing other buffalo from Buffalo? If there is no proof that this is happening, this page should be speedily deleted as an attack page. ;-)<BR> — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  22:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Buffalo buffalo will Buffalo buffalo you instead! Shawnc 08:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack page? 

message: So this article has been AfD'd, prod'd, and now DB'd!  Quite impressive, really.  I like the DB one the most.  violet/riga (t) 07:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all forms yet ! :-) There was no "arbitrary deletion by a rogue admin" yet. If you are willing to set a record here, I am ready to sacrifice my reputation and delete this page as G1 :-). `'mikka (t) 00:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All forms of deletion 

message: The original email features a longer version involving the verb 'to Buffalo buffalo'; to intimidate in a Buffolian way (c.f. to Tennesse waltz). This would make the sentence 'Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo'. Worth including? It does have a nice symmetry to it.
: I think the suggestion that "to Tennessee waltz" is a legitimate verb was rather tongue-in-cheek in that email.  Does anyone really buy "John and Mary Tennessee waltzed all night"?  —johndburger 23:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do buy that "Tennessee waltz" is a legitimate verb in a certain community or culture (of dancers). The same is not true for "Buffalo buffalo," at least not yet (not even in the Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo-editing community). I certainly don't accept it. In fact, to me, it makes it less interesting because then the basic "unit" of the sentence is "Buffalo buffalo" with only 5 repetitions and two different meanings. In the original, we have 8 repetitions of "buffalo" with three different meanings, which is more interesting to me than the symmetry of the other example. --JaimeLesMaths 00:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, there are only a dozen or so occurrences of the bigram Tennessee waltzed in Google at the moment.  Only one or two are arguably the verb form we're discussing, and those seem to be in poems or songs.  The rest are things like Tennesse waltzed over their opponents. Again, for what it's worth. —johndburger 15:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Buffalo buffalo? 

message: Can Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo?  Synesthetic 23:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to buffalo a whole city? —Keenan Pepper 00:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course. You can even buffalo a whole country if you're, say, a certain president... Shawnc 14:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffaloing Buffalo 

message: Anyone care to coin a linguistic neologism to describe sentences/phrases of this ilk. There's clearly enough of them in different languages, and enough interest from all over the place, to warrant a term.
e.g. "Buffalo phrase" (cf. Snowclone - another linguistic term that's based on a well-known exemplar).
--Mahemoff 00:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I plump for "homophonic sentence".  violet/riga (t) 12:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "homophonous sentence" would be more accurate.  violet/riga (t) 12:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read the earlier discussion under the section "homophones" - it's really not right to call the entire category of these things "homophones" when some of the cases are "homographs" and other cases (such as the 'buffalo*8' sentence in the title) are clearly both homophones AND homographs.  "homonym" is a much better term IMHO. Furthermore, Wikipedia policy discourages neologisms - so picking a neologism that we ourselves invent is even worse! SteveBaker 14:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just spoken to an English Language professor I'm told that both "homophonic sentence" and "homophonous sentence" are used.  violet/riga (t) 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some bloody git removed my earlier petition to move this article to a more encompassing name for the linguistic oddity. As I said there, New Scientist postulates (or rather, doesn't) that words like these are 'polyontologias'. Or something. --84.64.51.100 22:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No punny neologisms here, please. `'mikka (t) 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "This kind of wordplay" is a number of different phenomena, but I have seen references to "buffalo sentences" in the literature.  —johndburger 02:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistic Term For This Kind of Sentence? 

message: I am interested in doing the audio recording for this article.  However, there are some obstacles.  First, I don't know how to voice the part "Buffaloc buffaloa Buffaloc buffaloa buffalov buffalov Buffaloc buffaloa." without breaking up the flow.  Second, I wouldn't be able to sound like a native speaker for the parts in the "other languages" section.  While normally that would disqualify me, I don't know if we can find anyone who could do that in the world. I could finesse the European languages, I supposed, but it would be really off for the Filipino and Chinese ones.  Suggestions? MrVoluntarist 03:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could have a native speaker record each one separately and then splice them together. —Keenan Pepper 16:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am intrested in doing the splicing and possibly even the recording. I have practise with splicing and audio work. Flutefluteflute 18:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About that audio recording 

message: I personally believe that those three boxes at the top of this page should stay as although it is unlikely people are finding the article through theese sites they show the achievemnet of this article. Flutefluteflute 17:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Hight Traffic Links 

message: I can't find a published source for this example (I think it was only recently pointed out), so I am putting it here instead, and will leave it to others to decide if it can be included.
*The fell fell, from the fell fell.
This uses four meanings of the word fell, and can in fact be parsed to have two different meanings. The four meanings of fell are: (a) the noun 'fell' (an animal hide); (b) the noun 'fell' (referring to a, sometimes barren, upland area); (c) the adjective 'fell' (something deadly and dangerous); (d) 'fell' as the past tense of the verb 'to fall'.
Using these labels, the two meanings of the sentence are:
*(1) The fellc fella, from the fellb felld.
*(2) The fella felld, from the fellc fellb.
The second meaning may be slightly silly, as a deadly animal hide would not really form part of a rational sentence, and similar objections may be raised for the first meaning of a deadly upland area. But I'd be interested to see what others think.
This construction has also been mentioned at the language reference desk. I may be able to dig up the link to that discussion (it was probably earlier in 2006) if anyone wants it. Carcharoth 12:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'fell' example 

message: The first time I heard this kind of sentence was "Oysters Oysters Oysters Eat Eat Eat"
(To crack it, look at the base case: Oysters Eat, which is clearly grammatically correct/
The second case, Oysters Oysters Eat Eat simple means "The Oysters (that Oysters Eat) Eat"
From there, it is easy to take this onto infinity. Oysters Oysters Oysters Eat Eat Eat would mean "The Oysters (that Oysters (that Oysters eat) eat) eat")
Should this example be added to the main page? It seems like it fits the original topic, that is, a gramitcally correct phrase consisting of just one word, much better than many of the other english examples listed, which often instert other words inbetween the repeated words or simply use words that sound the say. --Sirclucky 02:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any relative clause in English can be repeated indefinitely in this way, and it is thus not notable or unique to any word or combination of words in the language.  The only interesting thing the above phrase does is make use of the fact that 'eat' can be both a transitive and intransitive verb, in order to use it in both capacities.  But as I explain in the 'limits' section of the article, the problem with using this tactic is that the nesting of relative clauses is usually considered syntactically incomprehensible in English, even if it does not technically break any fundamental syntactic rules.  What is special about Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo is that it creates a sentence of maximal length *without* the use of nested relative clauses. --Yst 08:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oysters? 

message: Wouldnt it make sense to just title this page "Buffalo buffalo buffalo"?  Haplolology 02:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, i agree. Not a dog 22:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject of the article isn't the phrase "Buffalo buffalo buffalo," it's the entire sentence.  I think the page is correctly titled. —Celithemis 23:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the above, but I redirected Buffalo buffalo buffalo to Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo., so people typing in the former can find the latter. -Emiellaiendiay 01:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree with having that redirect, but not with changing the name of the article itself. --Czj 03:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorten the name?? 

message: Cantonese is also a tonal language, which is not made clear.  In fact, it uses more tones than Mandarin does.  I would modify the entry so it is clear but I don't know if the Cantonese phrase which is presented is ever used as a teaching tool.  Does anyone know?
Jmchen 05:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cantonese also a tonal language 

message: There's another example in German too, but the words are not EXACTLY alike but very close:
::In Ulm und um Ulm und um Ilm herum.
I'll leave it here in case someone thinks it's worthy enough to be added to the article. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like most of the examples (sadly) already on the page, I do not think this belongs—the notability of the Buffalo sentences, to me, is that every single word is identical.  Thank you for raising it for discussion, though, rather than blithely adding it to the article. —johndburger 05:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German example -- close enough to be included? 

message: Would the example from Catch-22 be useful here? At least it's well referenced. There's a character Major Major Major (so named as a joke by his father) who gets promoted to the rank of Major making him Major Major Major Major. Ronank 14:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the editor who removed it said it quite well: this is about repetitive-sounding sentences, and that's not a sentence. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catch-22 

message: We've got plenty of time.  Who's with me? --Czj 03:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the article is a list. If you want this to become Featured, the first step would be to export most of these to a separate list article (List of buffalo sentences?) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is an exceedingly good suggestion, it seems to me, though I would propose, List of Homophonous Phrases or something similar, with the page Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo then being restricted to analysis of that phrase itself and its status as the source of the English language's longest phrase constructed entirely of homophones --Yst 10:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created that page. I will wait a bit before deleting from this page. Please help sort out the new page.-- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 12:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a slightly different theme should we ask ourselves why the buffalo phrase deserves an article of it own any more than a phrase on the new page? -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 15:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the page should really be moved to whatever the linguists in the posts further up the page decide is the correct term for this type of construct, the article benefits a lot from including a worked example of how these sentences are put together. Since one example is pretty much as good as another, and the work for Buffalo... is already done and it appears to be a fairly common one in the literature (as they go), I don't see any pressing need to delete the bulk of the text. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA on April 1, 2007? 

message: Okay, if I'm understanding the sentence as "NewYork bison (who) NewYork bison intimidate(comma) intimidate (other) NewYork bison, then the image parse-tree is incorrect. "New York" as a city is a proper noun, but as "New York subway tunnel," it'd be a proper adjective. For the buffalo sentence, Buffalo(city) is a modifier for buffalo(bison).  Could someone fix it, and fix the tags to match?(I'll try but I've never uploaded an image before)   Unless of course I'm horribly mistaken, in which case please explain in small words. Cantras 05:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a noun does not become an adjective simply because it modifies another noun (which nouns do rather a lot in English), it becomes a noun adjunct within the compound, and remains a noun.  "Buffalonian" would be an Adjective.  "Buffalo" is never an adjective.  The semantic test for this is the placement of the word following a copula used in an attributive capacity, in which case only an adjective is acceptable (whereas either an adjective or a noun adjunct may modify a noun within a noun phrase).  "Those bisons are Buffalonian" is acceptable, as "Buffalonian" is an adjective, while "Those bisons are Buffalo" is nonsense (they are a city?), as Buffalo, here as anywhere else, is merely a noun which, like all English nouns, can be used as a modifier within a noun phrase, or in apposition to one, but not elsewhere. --Yst 10:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another grammar thing 

message: I just added the spoken version.  Seems only right that someone should do it! :) --Caninedoubletake 01:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read It 

message: J. Rapaport has far too much time on his hands. --80.0.130.16 14:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: "Indeed, for any n ≥ 1, the sentence buffalon is grammatically correct.[3] The shortest is 'buffalo!', meaning either 'bully (someone)!', or 'look, there are buffalo, here!' For n = 0 could be argued to be a valid garden path sentence; one's definition of 'sentence' may or may not include "" as a valid sentence. Rational sentences, however, generally include at least one word and thus are excluded for the preceding."
Does this qualify under original research?  Does someone have a source for this?  KevinPuj 02:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't like that closing sentence either. It adds nothing and I can't see the "empty sentence" being a sentence. It needs a period, at least. —Ben FrantzDale 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More OR 

message: I looked into this a while ago and found that, If you  neglect the city name, the sentences become ambiguous after five words. If you allow the city name, it's ambiguous at three words; "Buffalo buffalo buffalo" could mean either "Bison bamboozle bison" or "Bison from upstate New York bamboozle." So even if the sentences are parsable, they are ambiguous. —Ben FrantzDale 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity 

message: The Buffalo Zoo contains bison. This page needs a picture of some Buffalo buffalo, or even some Buffalo buffalo buffaloing Buffalo buffalo. —Ben FrantzDale 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: What is the full stop (period) doing at the end of the article title? I assume it was added under a false notion that "a sentence has to end in a full stop", which may be half true in continuous written prose but certainly doesn't apply here. (You don't see many full stops at the end of newspaper headlines, for instance, yet most of them are grammatically complete sentences.) Any objections if I take it out? --Blisco 18:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No? OK, I will. --Blisco 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final full stop 

message: I see the WikiWorld cartoon as self-reference. The illustrations from it are nice, and could add to the article, but the title line is inappropriate. Comments? —Ben FrantzDale 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe its a stretch to call it a self-reference.  I think shouldn't be an embedded image.  Perhaps a link to the artist's external site would be better.  Vees 16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The thing I find most self-referential is that it includes the Wikipedia logo and in that the cartoon's text explicitly references this page and would not exist at all if it weren't for this page. It also has the author's name prominently (if illegibly) featured, which seems inappropriate. Additionally, I don't see how the cartoon adds anything to the article. The text comes from the article, and while the pictures are cute, at the same time they are unencyclopedic. All told, I don't see how it adds anything while it detracts from the tone of the article. —Ben FrantzDale 12:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's fine. That presentation makes it "meta" to my eyes. I still think the WikiWorld project is misguided, but at least this makes it clear that it's not part of the article. —Ben FrantzDale 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiWorld Cartoon 

message: Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are intimidated by other bison in their community, also happen to intimidate other bison in their community.
I feel like the commas (besides "Buffalo, New York") shouldn't be in this sentence.  Having them there makes it sound like the first mention of bison is talking about all bison, when it's supposed to be only a subset (a buffalo can't intimidate itself, presumably).  I think this is a case of restrictive vs. nonrestrictive clauses?  The "who are intimidated by other bison in their community" is necessary to restrict "bison" to the right ones... it's not additional unnecessary description and shouldn't be set off with commas.
Actually I think there is something about setting off "city, state" with another comma afterward ()... not sure why... but then the third comma still shouldn't be there. --Galaxiaad 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already a rather loose paraphrasing of the original. Replace "Buffalo, New York" with "upstate New York" and remove the need for the commas there. —mako (talk•contribs) 14:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More punctuation 

message: So this is what those people who majored in English are doing with their time.  XM 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...