2
$\begingroup$

I recently read this:

Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo

It deploys the fact that "Buffalo" has different meanings:

  1. The animal buffalo.
  2. To buffalo somebody, e.g. bully them.
  3. A proper noun.

Furthermore, the plural form of "Buffalo1" can be just "Buffalo". This sentence means: (subscript corresponds to the No. of meaning)

Buffalo3 Buffalo1 (pl.) Buffalo3 Buffalo1 (pl.) Buffalo2 Buffalo2 Buffalo3 Buffalo1 (pl.)

i.e. Some buffalos from the place of Buffalo, who were bullied by some other buffalos also from the place of Buffalo, were to bully other buffalos again from the place of Buffalo!

Feeling shocked of how unpleasant the buffalos from Buffalo were, I came up with an idea: can we create a sentence like this, as long as possible? Capitalization problems can be ignored, since THEY CAN BE BYPASSED BY ALL-CAPS! But trailing -s, -ing, etc. are better left out.

Any idea? :)

This is quite related to this one, but not exactly the same: that question said:

With that background, the goal of this question is to create a sentence made up of the most different homonyms of the same word. This is not a challenge to find the longest sentence consisting of one word.

While mine is to find the longest sentence consisting of one word. :)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @OmegaKrypton Hmm... That question explicitly said "... the goal of this question is to create a sentence made up of the most different homonyms of the same word." $\endgroup$ – L. F. Jan 28 '19 at 11:02
  • $\begingroup$ Awfully close to puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/33701/… (which was closed as "unclear"), where Deusovi points out that you can have an arbitrarily long string of buffalos. $\endgroup$ – Gareth McCaughan Jan 28 '19 at 12:59
  • $\begingroup$ @Bass Your comment is a possible duplicate of Gareth's comment :) $\endgroup$ – L. F. Jan 28 '19 at 13:43
  • $\begingroup$ @L.F. yeah, the VTC-dupe button adds those comments automatically. $\endgroup$ – Bass Jan 28 '19 at 13:46
6
$\begingroup$

Well it is actually true that

Any sentence only containing an arbitrary number of "Buffalo" is grammatical and interpretable. This was shown in Sweet Reason: A Field Guide to Modern Logic by Tim Tymoczko and Jim Henle. See here

Example

Take 11 Buffalo

Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo

interpreted as "Those Buffalo from Buffalo which Buffalo from Buffalo Buffalo themselves Buffalo other Buffalo from Buffalo which Buffalo from Buffalo Buffalo."

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.