Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

Here's the situation: the sentence Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo is a grammatically correct sentence that has a meaning.

The sentence uses three different meanings of 'buffalo'.

1. the city of Buffalo, New York, United States

2. the noun buffalo as in the animal; and

3. the verb 'buffalo' meaning to bully, confuse, deceive, or intimidate.

This means that the sentence if split up like this:

Marking each 'buffalo' with its use as shown above gives:

Buffalo(1) buffalo(2) Buffalo(1) buffalo(2) buffalo(3) buffalo(3) Buffalo(1) buffalo(2)

So that the meaning of the sentence is:

Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are intimidated by other bison in their community, also happen to intimidate other bison.

If this is still not making a lot of sense, think of it like this: If you replaced the verb 'buffalo' with 'intimidate', and the noun 'buffalo' with the word 'people', the sentence would read:

Buffalo people that Buffalo people intimidate also intimidate people.

It's clear that this is some crazy shit. It's an example of how homonyms can be used.

Homonyms are words that have the same spellings and pronunciations, but different meanings. Other examples of homonyms are:

Bass (e.g. I enjoy bass fishing and play the bass guitar)  
   
Lead  (e.g. the group's lead singer had made some enemies, and carried a lead pipe for protection.)

The amazing thing about this crazy homonym sentence is that is a completely valid sentence in the form that you see it in  – it doesn't really even need punctuation, unless you are a bit of a comma-lover.

 'I'm sorry, were you talking to me, or were you referring to the city of Buffalo. Or perhaps you were referring to the colloquial term 'buffalo', meaning 'to bully'? It's all so confusing! How did we even get this far as a species?'