That’s only because in the original sentence it’s talking about things generally (eg “strawberries are red”), so it needs a plural or a mass noun, which is the case in the original sentence. You could say “Quarterbacks Packers draft” instead. Or think of a team name that can’t use “the”, like “goalies West Ham United signed”.
The point of the buffalo sentence is that it’s technically grammatically correct, even if it sounds awkward. It’s a really famous sentence among linguists, so do you really think all the language nerds who’ve seen it have missed that it’s actually not grammatical and needs a relative pronoun?
Quaterback Twins Greenbay Packers draft, play Detroit Lions.
This sounds fine to me (although I wouldn’t use the comma), I dunno what to tell you. Maybe it’s different in your idiolect, but again, do you really think you’re picking up on something that countless other linguists missed?
Well, given that there isn’t a similar sentence that makes sense (without inserting words). Yes.
I mean, I appreciate that it’s a bit of linguistic fun dreamt up by Dmitri Borgmann. But it’s flawed. It needs an additional (non-buffalo) word to make proper sense.
That’s only because in the original sentence it’s talking about things generally (eg “strawberries are red”), so it needs a plural or a mass noun, which is the case in the original sentence. You could say “Quarterbacks Packers draft” instead. Or think of a team name that can’t use “the”, like “goalies West Ham United signed”.
The point of the buffalo sentence is that it’s technically grammatically correct, even if it sounds awkward. It’s a really famous sentence among linguists, so do you really think all the language nerds who’ve seen it have missed that it’s actually not grammatical and needs a relative pronoun?
Nope. Still missing a word.
If the sentence was technically grammatically correct then a direct substitution of all 8 words (without adding more) should make sense.
I’ve already provided a counter example where it doesn’t make sense. I’ll drop my argument if you can find one that does.
This sounds fine to me (although I wouldn’t use the comma), I dunno what to tell you. Maybe it’s different in your idiolect, but again, do you really think you’re picking up on something that countless other linguists missed?
Without an additional word between words 2 and 3, this is just a list. That’s why it makes no sense.
You only think it makes sense because you are adding in words subconsciously.
Still waiting for an example that actually works.
do you really think you’re picking up on something that countless other linguists missed?
Well, given that there isn’t a similar sentence that makes sense (without inserting words). Yes.
I mean, I appreciate that it’s a bit of linguistic fun dreamt up by Dmitri Borgmann. But it’s flawed. It needs an additional (non-buffalo) word to make proper sense.
Maybe you should make an edit on the wiki page then so all the other people can understand it as well as you.
Do any other famous sentences also need edits?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher
No problems there. You can substitute other words to confirm that the sentence makes sense.
Note that that sentence that had had, had words other than had and that had had an impact.