Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

[koganbot]

In his blog, Paul Krugman links to William Rapaport's search for the various sources of grammatical, intelligible (if you already know what the person is trying to say) sentences made entirely of the word "buffalo." Rapaport created this one in 1972:

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

It works along the lines of:

"Mice cats chase eat cheese"; i.e., Mice THAT cats chase eat cheese.

In Rapaport's version, "Buffalo" when capitalized means the city in western New York State, "buffalo" can mean either the noun "bison" or the verb "to buffalo" (which is a transitive verb meaning either "to intimidate" or "to baffle and bewilder"), and "to Buffalo buffalo" some creature is to buffalo that creature in a way that's unique to Buffalo buffaloes. (According to Rapaport there are bison in the Buffalo zoo.) "Buffalo" (meaning bison) in the plural can be spelled "buffalo," "buffalos," or "buffaloes."

So, Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Meaning: buffalo from Buffalo that are Buffalo buffaloed by Buffalo buffalo, in turn Buffalo buffalo other Buffalo buffalo.

Comments

u&k

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

"access" is two words shorter than "get access to"

my guess: subs fashioning crunchy tabloid headlines ("hedding crunchily") cause most verbing

Re: u&k

[koganbot]

You're right that it is shorter. Actually, the problem with "access" as a verb is that it is used not to mean "get access to" but simply as a synonym for "get" or "link" or "download," the first being shorter still and already in common usage, and the latter being more specific. So the verb "access" has an air of efficiency while actually being longer or vaguer than the alternatives. However, I've read arguments that defend the verb "contact" precisely for its vagueness - that is, if you don't know whether you're going to phone or mail or email or meet someone, "contact" covers them all. I've defended "influence" for its vagueness (though your particular objection to the term isn't merely to its vagueness but to its use as a validation, e.g., the attempt to vaguely validate some performer by claiming the performer had an influence on or was influenced by the Velvet Underground). Deliberately using vague words when the specifics are known can be a useful comic device; e.g., when Ingrid and James sent the invitation for their son's bar mitvah, including the specification "black tie optional," it was remarked that the word "optional" was the influence of James.

Re: u&k

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

better synonym than "access" for "get access to" = "gut"

(not exact as it implies a. what you've accessed you've taken, and b. its container will never again contain)

Re: u&k

[edgeofwhatever.livejournal.com]

But "access" isn't a synonym for any of those things -- if I "get" or "download" something, I transfer it from one location (remote) to another (local), and if I "link" to a location I am connected but that does not guarantee the ability to do anything with that connection. "Access" is somewhere in between those two things -- a link with the potential to get/download/perform some other action. (Although then there are phrases like "I accessed the file," where just by viewing it you are technically downloading it to your own computer, but not in the traditional "saved a copy to my desktop" sense.)