Is "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." a sentence? Can you diagram it?

Yes, it is a sentence. According to Wikipedia, that sentence is used as an example of how homonyms and homophones can be used to create complicated constructs. Buffalo, in addition to the animal and the city, also means “to bully, confuse, deceive, or intimidate.

€ As such, it can be parsed a few different ways:Bison from Buffalo intimidate (other) bison from Buffalo that are intimidated by bison from BuffaloWikipedia goes on to say:To further understand the structure of the sentence, one can replace "Buffalo buffalo" with any number of noun phrases. Rather than referring to "Buffalo buffalo" intimidating other "Buffalo buffalo", one can use noun phrases like "Alley cats", "Junkyard dogs", and "Sewer rats". The sentence then reads, "Alley cats whom Junkyard dogs intimidate also happen to intimidate Sewer rats.".

Believe it or not, this sentence is grammatically correct and has meaning: “Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. €

First devised by professor William J. Rapaport in 1972, the sentence uses various meanings and parts of speech for the term “buffalo” (and its related proper noun “Buffalo”) to make an extremely hard-to-parse sentence.

Although most people know “buffalo” as both a singular and plural term for bison, and “Buffalo” as a city in New York, “buffalo” is also a verb meaning “to bully, confuse, deceive, or intimidate. € Using these definitions, Wikipedia suggests the sentence can be read: Those (Buffalo buffalo) whom (Buffalo buffalo buffalo) buffalo (Buffalo buffalo). Still too hard to follow for those of us who don’t know “buffalo” as a verb.

Refine once more: Those buffalo(es) from Buffalo that are intimidated by buffalo(es) from Buffalo intimidate buffalo(es) from Buffalo. And once more: Bison from Buffalo, New York who are intimidated by other bison in their community also happen to intimidate other bison in their community. The sentence is unpunctuated and uses three different readings of the word "buffalo".

In order of their first use, these are * c. The city of Buffalo, New York (or any other place named "Buffalo"), which is used as an adjective in the sentence and is followed by the animal; * a. The animal buffalo, in the plural (equivalent to "buffaloes" or "buffalos"), in order to avoid articles (a noun); * v.

The verb "buffalo" meaning to bully, confuse, deceive, or intimidate. Wikipedia has further explanation, including the slightly frightening note: Buffalo is not the only word in English for which this kind of sentence can be constructed; any word which is both a plural noun and a plural form of a transitive verb will do. Other examples include dice, fish, right and smelt.

Beware of Buffalo buffalo, buffalo, for they may buffalo you! http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/BuffaloBuffalo/buffalobuffalo.html.

They said enough I think on the Buffalo & buffalo...what I can read here is an "ART of languages and comprehension". Just like saying in Latin Mnemonics "Malo malo malo malo" not Mahalo though...hmmm maybe let's come up with something Mahalo halo instead? Malo: I would rather be Malo: In an apple tree Malo: Than a naughty boy Malo: In adversity.

I have to say that this isn't anything more than a hypothetical justification on behalf of an English community, who will accept a novel riddle when fed to them as an official "truth" of grammatical establishment. The "code" Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo might be grammatically correct, but it's not a sentence. No, this kind of thing is an arbitrary dose of twisted rubbish.An authority who dictated a symbol of a relevant authority, inspired by an authority of grammar.

This man: William Rapaport is, or was, undoubtedly, an honored man of language. If he wasn't already, he should have been working for the CIA in special communication coding; the undercover bureau of special investigative junkies: "deep cover." Without the proper prepositions or at least one coma, I only support Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo.

It does work for six, that I know. However, 8 strung together, let alone seven, breaks the fundamental rules of syntax. THAT, is why it isn't acceptable.

But then again, I'm not the president of Wikipedia. The grammar authority god. The master of "loopholes.

Yes, this is 100% a gramatically correct sentence. The reason this is true is because it uses center embedding. These types of sentences are not common and are rarely used.An example is "The man the girl saw went home after work".

The man the girl saw is the subject of the phrase, and so the "saw" in the sentence isn't the main verb, with man being the "true" subject and "the girl saw" as describing him. Another way of writing the sentence above is "The girl saw a man who went home after work". Using the rule that subjects in plural form don't require articles in front of them, another sentence can be written.

"Cats dogs chase like milk". This is a bit harder to comprehend than the first sentence. However, it's a true sentence.

The "true" subject is cats, with "dogs chase" as being a description of these cats. The main verb of the sentence is "like", and "the milk" as the direct object. Now using the same breakdown, a breakdown of "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" can be accomplished.

The first use of the uppercase"Buffalo" of the sentence is describing the noun, buffalo, which is directly followed by Buffalo the city three times in the sentence. The first "Buffalo buffalo" phrase is the "true" subject of the phrase, with the phrase directly following it, "Buffalo buffalo buffalo", as the description of the first "Buffalo buffalo" in the sentence. After wrapping your mind on this, the second half of the sentence can be deciphered.

After seeing that "Buffalo (city) buffalo(noun) Buffalo(city) buffalo (noun) buffalo (verb)" is the full subject of the sentence, the main verb and direct object are left. The "buffalo" (verb) immediately after the first buffalo (verb) is the main action of the sentence. All that's left, the final "Buffalo buffalo" of the sentence, which are the last two words, is the direct object, which is the receiver of the first "Buffalo buffalo" buffalo-ing.

This phrase, is comprised of Buffalo(city), which is followed by buffalo (noun). Now, combining all the segments yield the full sentence "Buffalo(city) buffalo (noun) Buffalo (city) buffalo (noun) buffalo (verb) buffalo (verb) Buffalo (city) buffalo (noun). If you are able to understand the sentence now, then good work, because it's a very complicated sentence.

While yes it's a true, gramatically-correct sentence, it is pointless and is almost impossible to work into an everyday conversation.

No, it is not a sentence. A sentence can be defined as: "a string of words satisfying the grammatical rules of a language. " The rules of grammar are rules designed to help people understand each other.It is also defined as "acceptable patterns of a language.

" That string of words does not do either of these things. In order to do that, it would need a few prepositions and pronouns. For example: "Those Buffalo buffalo whom Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo other Buffalo buffalo.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.