6 ms·

Another favorite: If police police police police, who police police police? Police police police police police police. And: James, while John had had "had",

Another favorite: If police police police police, who police police police? Police police police police police police. And: James, while John had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher. Also, of course Martin Gardner came up with a great one: Wouldn't the sentence "I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chips sign" have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?

zaroth 8y ago
Is the first one quite right? Who police police police? Police police police police. If police police the police police, who police the police who police police police? That would be police who police the police who police the police who police police. Who (n)? (n+1). If (n), who (n)? (n+1). [n > 2] P.S. 10 edits later... Wait, is that even right? Ow, my head P.P.S. Coding this chatbot is the next hot interview question.
- sirsar 8y ago
  (police police) [specifies what kind of police] (police) [people who do the policing] (police) [verb] (police police) [object that gets policed]. If (something)-police police (something), who police (something)-police? ((something)-police)-police police ((something)-police).
  - JadeNB 8y ago
    > who police (something)-police? This is the problem. The question is “who polices …?”, not “who police …?”, the rest of the sentence structure aside.
- jerf 8y ago
  Police police = Internal Affairs [1]. Who polices Internal Affairs? Internal Affairs-police police Internal Affairs. As I used a hyphen myself in that sentence, you could make a decent argument that English requires a bit more punctuation in the original sentence. It certainly allows it. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_(law_enforcement) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_(law_enforcem... , for those who don't watch as much police drama as my family does, or who live in a place that calls it something different.
  - SamBam 8y ago
    Actually, I don't believe it relies on unmarked compounds, or, indeed, adjectives at all. This is mentioned in point 3 in the linked article, but was surprised to see people in the email threads (e.g. Neuner) not get this. Basically, as I understand it, there are three rules to make this continue indefinitely, using only nouns and verbs: Rule 1: Any noun or noun-phrase can be made into a sentence by placing a verb at the end. e.g. "Police police" is a sentence. What do police do? They police. We could also say "Cops police." Likewise it works with noun-phrases: "[Eager cops] police." Rule 2: Any Noun phrase + Transitive verb sentence can have a noun placed at the end, as the object of the action. e.g. "Police police police." Who do cops police? Other cops. Similarly: "Detectives investigate criminals." Rule 3: The object of any sentence of the form above can be re-arranged by placing the object in front, to form a noun-phrase with the same number of words: "Detectives investigate criminals" => "Criminals detectives investigate... [tend to get caught]". This can also be phrased as "Criminals THAT detectives investigate" for clarity, but the THAT is unnecessary in English. "Police police police..." => "Cops THAT cops police... [tend to quit their jobs] This forms a new noun phrase (a sentence fragment) that you can apply rule #1 to, and then continue indefinitely from there. To apply these three rules up to seven words: "Police police police: ("Cops police cops"). "Police police police police" ("Cops cops police police"): Turn the object of the sentence above into a noun phrase, from rule 3: "Cops (THAT) other cops police...", and add a verb (Rule 1): "The cops THAT other cops police, themselves police. "Police police police police police" ("Cops cops police police cops"): Who do they police? Other cops. (Rule 2) "Police police police police police police" ("Cops cops cops police police police"): (Rearranged noun phrase, from rule 3: The policemen (from the line above above) THAT are policed by cops that are themselves policed by cops) + (Rule 1 Verb: themselves police). "Police police police police police police police" ("Cops cops cops police police police cops"): ... and who do they police? Other cops. (Rule 2) ...Anyway, this is how I worked it out myself, when trying to understand the buffalo sentence, and then was always very disappointed to find the variation with the capitalized "Buffalo" adjective being touted as the canonical one, since it always seemed less interesting to me.
    - redmorphium 8y ago
      I agree with you. This is the most profound way to interpret these kinds of sentences, and it exemplifies a consequence of how English allows you to omit the "that" in dependent clauses.
- 0xffff2 8y ago
  I think it's > If (n + 1) police (n), who police (n + 1)? (n + 2). which reduces to > If (2n + 2), who (n + 2)? (n + 2).
  - zaroth 8y ago
    See, it’s the perfect interview question!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tomcam 8y ago
  Upvoted for your charming public mulling over of the issues and the P.P.S
  - tomcam 8y ago
    Not sure why I was downvoted for the comment... maybe it sounded sarcastic? I meant it in a nice way
- dyarosla 8y ago
  I feel like it should be ‘who polices police police?’. As exemplified in the sibling comment substituting police police for internal affairs.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
michaelt 8y ago
I wouldn't even know where to put quotation marks if you asked me where quotation marks belonged between 'Fish' and 'and' and 'and' and 'and,' and 'and,' and 'and', and 'and'....
JadeNB 8y ago
> If police police police police, who police police police? I’m pretty sure the fifth ‘police’ (after ‘who’) should be ‘polices’.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  Who rob banks? Robbers. (i.e. I don't think 'Robbers robs banks' is right.)
  - JadeNB 8y ago
    > Who rob banks? Robbers. (i.e. I don't think 'Robbers robs banks' is right.) “Robbers robs banks” is certainly wrong (it should be “Robbers rob banks”), but so is “Who rob banks?” (it should be “Who robs banks?”).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - JadeNB 8y ago
    As a follow-up to my sibling comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18410528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18410528: if your point is that the question should parallel the answer, note that the exchange could also go ”Who robs banks?” ”John Dillinger robs banks.” A question that can only be asked if you already know its answer (so as to decide whether the verb in the question should match a singular or plural noun) is not so useful!
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
anonytrary 8y ago
That first one is a twister. If police police police police, who police police police? POLICE police police police police police. I seriously can't stop laughing at these, they are hilarious. The fish-and-chips one, my god, what a brilliant thing.
- Camillo 8y ago
  That's not right. It's (((police) police) police), not (police (police (police))).
  - anonytrary 8y ago
    It's leviosa, not levoisa! Jokes aside, I think I'm right. "(police(police(police))" reads as "police of the police of the police", which sounds right. I read it as "If police-police police police, who police police-police? Police-police-police police police-police."
lisper 8y ago
There's an even neater way to construct these sentences. The construct "Police police police" can be construed in two different ways: 1. As a complete N-V-N sentence. 2. As a noun phrase with an implied "that" i.e. "Police [that] police police..." So you can freely substitute "Police police police" for either the first or last "police" in the base sentence and derive a new legitimate sentence with a noun at either end. That process can be repeated as many times as you like.

zaroth 8y ago

Is the first one quite right? Who police police police? Police police police police. If police police the police police, who police the police who police police police? That would be police who police the police who police the police who police police. Who (n)? (n+1). If (n), who (n)? (n+1). [n > 2] P.S. 10 edits later... Wait, is that even right? Ow, my head P.P.S. Coding this chatbot is the next hot interview question.

sirsar 8y ago
(police police) [specifies what kind of police] (police) [people who do the policing] (police) [verb] (police police) [object that gets policed]. If (something)-police police (something), who police (something)-police? ((something)-police)-police police ((something)-police).
- JadeNB 8y ago
  > who police (something)-police? This is the problem. The question is “who polices …?”, not “who police …?”, the rest of the sentence structure aside.
jerf 8y ago
Police police = Internal Affairs [1]. Who polices Internal Affairs? Internal Affairs-police police Internal Affairs. As I used a hyphen myself in that sentence, you could make a decent argument that English requires a bit more punctuation in the original sentence. It certainly allows it. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_(law_enforcement) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_(law_enforcem... , for those who don't watch as much police drama as my family does, or who live in a place that calls it something different.
- SamBam 8y ago
  Actually, I don't believe it relies on unmarked compounds, or, indeed, adjectives at all. This is mentioned in point 3 in the linked article, but was surprised to see people in the email threads (e.g. Neuner) not get this. Basically, as I understand it, there are three rules to make this continue indefinitely, using only nouns and verbs: Rule 1: Any noun or noun-phrase can be made into a sentence by placing a verb at the end. e.g. "Police police" is a sentence. What do police do? They police. We could also say "Cops police." Likewise it works with noun-phrases: "[Eager cops] police." Rule 2: Any Noun phrase + Transitive verb sentence can have a noun placed at the end, as the object of the action. e.g. "Police police police." Who do cops police? Other cops. Similarly: "Detectives investigate criminals." Rule 3: The object of any sentence of the form above can be re-arranged by placing the object in front, to form a noun-phrase with the same number of words: "Detectives investigate criminals" => "Criminals detectives investigate... [tend to get caught]". This can also be phrased as "Criminals THAT detectives investigate" for clarity, but the THAT is unnecessary in English. "Police police police..." => "Cops THAT cops police... [tend to quit their jobs] This forms a new noun phrase (a sentence fragment) that you can apply rule #1 to, and then continue indefinitely from there. To apply these three rules up to seven words: "Police police police: ("Cops police cops"). "Police police police police" ("Cops cops police police"): Turn the object of the sentence above into a noun phrase, from rule 3: "Cops (THAT) other cops police...", and add a verb (Rule 1): "The cops THAT other cops police, themselves police. "Police police police police police" ("Cops cops police police cops"): Who do they police? Other cops. (Rule 2) "Police police police police police police" ("Cops cops cops police police police"): (Rearranged noun phrase, from rule 3: The policemen (from the line above above) THAT are policed by cops that are themselves policed by cops) + (Rule 1 Verb: themselves police). "Police police police police police police police" ("Cops cops cops police police police cops"): ... and who do they police? Other cops. (Rule 2) ...Anyway, this is how I worked it out myself, when trying to understand the buffalo sentence, and then was always very disappointed to find the variation with the capitalized "Buffalo" adjective being touted as the canonical one, since it always seemed less interesting to me.
  - redmorphium 8y ago
    I agree with you. This is the most profound way to interpret these kinds of sentences, and it exemplifies a consequence of how English allows you to omit the "that" in dependent clauses.
0xffff2 8y ago
I think it's > If (n + 1) police (n), who police (n + 1)? (n + 2). which reduces to > If (2n + 2), who (n + 2)? (n + 2).
- zaroth 8y ago
  See, it’s the perfect interview question!
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tomcam 8y ago
Upvoted for your charming public mulling over of the issues and the P.P.S
- tomcam 8y ago
  Not sure why I was downvoted for the comment... maybe it sounded sarcastic? I meant it in a nice way
dyarosla 8y ago
I feel like it should be ‘who polices police police?’. As exemplified in the sibling comment substituting police police for internal affairs.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

michaelt 8y ago

I wouldn't even know where to put quotation marks if you asked me where quotation marks belonged between 'Fish' and 'and' and 'and' and 'and,' and 'and,' and 'and', and 'and'....

JadeNB 8y ago

> If police police police police, who police police police? I’m pretty sure the fifth ‘police’ (after ‘who’) should be ‘polices’.

yesenadam 8y ago
Who rob banks? Robbers. (i.e. I don't think 'Robbers robs banks' is right.)
- JadeNB 8y ago
  > Who rob banks? Robbers. (i.e. I don't think 'Robbers robs banks' is right.) “Robbers robs banks” is certainly wrong (it should be “Robbers rob banks”), but so is “Who rob banks?” (it should be “Who robs banks?”).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- JadeNB 8y ago
  As a follow-up to my sibling comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18410528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18410528: if your point is that the question should parallel the answer, note that the exchange could also go ”Who robs banks?” ”John Dillinger robs banks.” A question that can only be asked if you already know its answer (so as to decide whether the verb in the question should match a singular or plural noun) is not so useful!
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

anonytrary 8y ago

That first one is a twister. If police police police police, who police police police? POLICE police police police police police. I seriously can't stop laughing at these, they are hilarious. The fish-and-chips one, my god, what a brilliant thing.

Camillo 8y ago
That's not right. It's (((police) police) police), not (police (police (police))).
- anonytrary 8y ago
  It's leviosa, not levoisa! Jokes aside, I think I'm right. "(police(police(police))" reads as "police of the police of the police", which sounds right. I read it as "If police-police police police, who police police-police? Police-police-police police police-police."

lisper 8y ago

There's an even neater way to construct these sentences. The construct "Police police police" can be construed in two different ways: 1. As a complete N-V-N sentence. 2. As a noun phrase with an implied "that" i.e. "Police [that] police police..." So you can freely substitute "Police police police" for either the first or last "police" in the base sentence and derive a new legitimate sentence with a noun at either end. That process can be repeated as many times as you like.