Dean's World

An Arbitrary Number of Buffalo

Dean

"Buffalo buffalo buffallo Buffalo buffalo" is a perfectly grammatical and logical sentence.

It is.

But what'll really mess with your head is the claim that you can construct such a syntactically correct sentence using an arbitrary number of buffalo. Which I can't quite wrap my head around yet, although I'm working on it.

(Thanks Jerry. I think.)

Related Posts (on one page):

An Arbitrary Number of Buffalo
Parse This Sentence

Posted by Dean | Permalink | Technorati Trackbacks

(link)

Jay Solo (mail) (www):

And of course there's the old favorite:
Cheeseburger cheeseburger cheeseburger cheeseburger cheeseburger.

5.24.2005 8:34am

(link)

maor (mail):

I THINK they mean that:

Buffalo[n] (that buffalo[n] (that buffalo[n] (that buffalo[n] buffalo[v]) buffalo[v]) buffalo[v]) buffalo[v] buffalo[n].

But I'm not sure.

Anyway, it seems pretty reduntant, as it is obvious that if you buffalo buffalo, the buffalo you buffalo are buffaloed by one who buffaloes buffalo.
Which may be why I never heard that particular sentence before.

5.24.2005 9:13am

(link)

Paul Burgess (www):

And if we imagine infinitely many buffalo lined up in pecking order, then we can always add another buffalo to the sequence by shifting all the buffalo down one space, and adding another "Buffalo buffalo" to the (infinitely long) sentence. In fact, we can add infinitely many buffalo to the pecking order by shifting each Nth buffalo to the 2Nth spot in the pecking order, inserting the new buffalo in the odd slots, and correspondingly adding infinitely many more "Buffalo buffalo" to the sentence.

In other words, a Hilbert Buffalo Paradox.

5.24.2005 9:23am

(link)

Jerry Kindall (www):

Yes, but the hotel bill for that many buffalo would be astronomical!

5.24.2005 1:29pm

(link)

Robin Sizemore, Jr. (mail) (www):

Until I read that Everything2 article, I hadn't even thought of it that way. I thought that Buffalo from Buffalo were buffaloing other buffalo from Buffalo.

Is that word starting to look funny to anyone else?

5.24.2005 1:55pm

(link)

David Gillies (mail) (www):

If you assert that the plural and the singular are the same, then it works for badgers, too.

5.24.2005 2:40pm

(link)

Deanna Barr (mail):

Or deer, which also have the same plural and singular?

5.24.2005 2:45pm

(link)

Jerry Kindall (www):

Yeah, but deer isn't a verb.

5.24.2005 2:51pm

(link)

Paul Burgess (www):

Badger badger badger...

5.24.2005 2:58pm

(link)

Paul Burgess (www):

Badger badger badger badger badger...

5.24.2005 2:59pm

(link)

Paul Burgess (www):

Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger...

5.24.2005 3:01pm

(link)

Thief (mail) (www):

MUSHROOM MUSHROOM!

/snaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake

5.24.2005 3:53pm

(link)

O. F. Jay (www):

Dangit, Paul beat me to it. Well, there's Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring ring... Sorry Dean, the grammar puzzles left me bleeding through the nose figuring em out.

5.24.2005 5:23pm

(link)

Jeremy Parker (www):

Uh...the best I got:

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

5.24.2005 7:03pm

(link)

B. Durbin (www):

Quantum materiæ materiatur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari.

You gotta say it right...

5.24.2005 10:20pm

(link)

maor (mail):

This terrible phenomenon of buffalo being buffaloed by buffalo, and then buffaloing buffalo as a result! (in Buffalo!)

The NYT has called on the government to stop this awful Cycle of Buffalo.

5.25.2005 10:04am