Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

Simplified parse tree
PN = proper noun
N = noun
V = verb
NP = noun phrase
RC = relative clause
VP = verb phrase
S = sentence

"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." is a grammatically valid sentence in the English language, used as an example of how homonyms and homophones can be used to create complicated linguistic 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. It was posted to Linguist List by Rapaport in 1992. It was also featured in Steven Pinker's 1994 book The Language Instinct.

The sentence's intended meaning becomes clearer when it's understood that it uses the city of Buffalo, New York and the somewhat-uncommon verb "to buffalo" (meaning "to bully or intimidate"), and when the punctuation and grammar is expanded so that the sentence reads as follows: "Buffalo buffalo that Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo." The meaning becomes even clearer when synonyms are used: "Buffalo-origin bison that other Buffalo bison intimidate, themselves bully Buffalo bison." (See below.)

Sentence construction

Traditional sentence diagram

American Bison, commonly called a "buffalo"

City of Buffalo, New York, United States

Buffalo engaged in a contest of dominance. The sentence supposes they have a history of such bullying with other buffalo, and they are from Buffalo.

A comic explaining the concept.

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, United States, which is used as a noun adjunct 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:

Buffalo^a buffaloⁿ Buffalo^a buffaloⁿ buffalo^v buffalo^v Buffalo^a buffaloⁿ.

Thus, the sentence when parsed reads as a claim that bison who are intimidated or bullied by bison are themselves intimidating or bullying to bison (at least in the city of Buffalo – implicitly, Buffalo, NY):

• [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, buffalo (verb) OTHER buffalo FROM Buffalo.
• Buffalo buffalo (main clause subject) [which the] Buffalo buffalo (subordinate clause subject) buffalo (subordinate clause verb) buffalo (main clause verb) Buffalo buffalo (main clause direct object).

The sentence can be clarified by substituting the synonym "bison" for the animal "buffalo", "bully" for the verb "buffalo", and "New York" to refer to the state of the city Buffalo:

"New York bison New York bison bully bully New York bison", or:

"New York bison whom other New York bison bully, themselves bully New York bison".

But might be easier to read by leaving the city name intact:

"Buffalo bison Buffalo bison bully bully Buffalo bison".

Removing the classifier noun "Buffalo" (the city) further clarifies the sentence (note that the initial capital is retained as the common noun "buffalo" now starts the sentence):

"Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo."

"Bison [that other] bison bully [also] bully bison."

Translation into first-order logic

Given domain = the set of all buffalo (animal), FB(x) = 'x is from Buffalo (place)' and B(x, y) = 'x buffalos (verb) y', the sentence can be translated into first-order logic as follows: $\forall x (\exists y (FB(x) \wedge FB(y) \wedge B(y, x)) \to \exists z (FB(z) \wedge B(x, z)))$

Usage

There is nothing special about eight "buffaloes"; indeed, a sentence with "buffalo" repeated any number of times can be grammatically correct according to Chomskyan theories of grammar. The shortest is "Buffalo!", which can be taken as an imperative instruction to bully someone ("You, buffalo!") with the understood prefix "you" removed.

Other words

Other English words can be used to make grammatical (but not necessarily meaningful) sentences of this form, containing endless consecutive repetitions. Any word that is both an animate plural noun and a transitive verb will work. Other words which can be used in this manner include police, dice, perch, smelt, char, people, and bream.

A somewhat similar non-punctuated example is "James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher". This could concern a situation in an English class regarding the usage of the word had, and might be punctuated as, "James, while John had had 'had', had had 'had had'; 'had had' had had a better effect on the teacher."

See also

• List of linguistic example sentences
• Semantic satiation
• Recursion
• Eats, Shoots & Leaves

External links

Listen to this article (info/dl)

This audio file was created from a revision of the "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" article dated 2006-12-09, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)

More spoken articles

• "Buffaloing buffalo" at Language Log, 20 January 2005
• Easdown, David. Teaching mathematics: the gulf between semantics (meaning) and syntax (form)PDF (273 KB)
• The Emory Wheel, Andrew Swerlick What a Herd of Confused Bison from Upstate New York Can Teach Us About Our Difficulties With the English Language

Video clip

• Explanation of the concept on YouTube