ELI5: that sentence that only uses buffalo

ELI5: that sentence that only uses buffalo

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. I've tried reading about how it works but I always get confused.

What helps is replacing the words with near synonyms.

Buffalo 1 - a type of bison

Buffalo 2 - a city in New York

Buffalo 3 - a verb meaning to intimidate

And now we can make the sentence

New York bison New York bison intimidate intimidate New York Bison.

And if we add a few commas and a few words for clarity, we can say:

New York bison, who are intimidated by New York bison, themselves also intimidate other New York bison.

Buffalo is a place. (Buffalo, NY) A place can be a descriptor, as in a person, or in this case animal from Buffalo.

buffalo, lower case, is an animal. It is also the plural from of the animal.

So far we have; buffalo from Buffalo..

After that we have buffalo as a verb, like bullying or stampeding.

Now the sentence would read Buffalo from Buffalo, run over/bully...

And then we repeat.

Buffalo from Buffalo bully other buffalo from Buffalo..., and so on.

Buffalo - a noun, an animal - big and furry - bison Buffalo - a noun, a town in New York Buffalo - a verb, to intimidate or bully

Another way of thinking of it is like this:

(The) New York bison (that) New York bison bully, bully New York bison

The (The) and (that) can be removed and they're assumed.

Words are weird.

Good explanation.

Here's another rewording that does mostly simple replacement (replace each bold word with "buffalo" to get the original sentence): Buffalo bison [that] Buffalo bison intimidate[,] intimidate Buffalo bison.

Another great English example of this is: "James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher"

That one isn't a grammatically correct sentence like the one you're citing is. It is intended to show the importance of punctuation, as the way it is written, it is missing commas and quotations. It makes sense when that is added.

James, while John had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.

Sorry, I've been out today. This is correct, it's not technically grammatically correct but it's the same gimmick

How does that one work?

I'm a big fan of

The rat the cat the dog chased killed ate the malt.