Talk:Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

Explanation

Can someone please explain the sentence "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" to me? Thank you.  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 09:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what are nouns, adjectives and verbs? If so, the article does a pretty good job of explaining it (you can also see en:Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo for a longer explanation). If you don't know English grammar, then it will be very difficult to explain. EhJJ^TALK 09:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's easier to read if we add "that" and a comma.

Buffalo buffalo that Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Let's change Buffalo to another city, to remove some of the confusion.

Chicago buffalo that Chicago buffalo buffalo, buffalo Chicago buffalo.

It can be even easier, when changing the verb to "confuse".

Chicago buffalo (that) Chicago buffalo confuse, confuse Chicago buffalo.

Finally, rearrange the parts to a less confusing format.

Chicago buffalo (that are) confuse(d by other) Chicago buffalo, (are) confused (regarding) Chicago buffalo.

Grammar

I'm not sure how the Simple English pages work grammatically, but it seems like "adjective: the city of Buffalo, New York." should read "adjective: from the city of Buffalo, New York." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.107.26.105 (talk • contribs) 12:48 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Capitalisation

The phrase is currently described as: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"

As I read through this, I would have thought it would be: "Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"

I.e. if (Buffalo buffalo) are bison from Buffalo, and buffalo on its own is the verb, the following seems to make more sense: (Buffalo buffalo) buffalo (Buffalo buffalo) buffalo (Buffalo buffalo)

Could someone tell me if this article is incorrect, or if I'm missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.254.139 (talk • contribs) 1:16 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely confusing, but the article has it right. A friend of mine explained it to me in a way that was very clear. I'll see if I can add a similar explanation. Stand by! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
OK, I'm going to add my explanation here instead of to the article so you can tell me if it helps first.

Instead of all those buffalo from Buffalo, imagine there are three different groups of animals from three different cities: lions from London, tigers from Taipei, and bears from Boston.

Now imagine that:

1. The lions from London are bewildered by the tigers from Taipei.
2. The lions from London confuse the bears from Boston.

You can say that with the following sentence:

London lions Taipei tigers bewilder confuse Boston bears.

Or, in other words, the London lions that the Taipei tigers bewilder, themselves confuse the Boston bears.

Now imagine that the three groups of animals are all buffalo, and they're all from the city of Buffalo. Also, we'll use the word "buffalo" as a verb instead of "bewilder" or "confuse". Now we have this:

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)