Not an essential word if you the listener have context! It’s just that understanding this phrase is reliant on reader knowing context (i…e either that buffalo tend to buffalo buffalo OR just the theory/gimmick of the sentence itself.)
Also i believe OP made some effort to indicate via Capitalisation that one repeated buffalo is a proper noun. (Place name)
Here’s some discussion of omitting “that” after a noun. I don’t agree with Grammar Girl on what sounds awkward but she acknowledges that sentences can sound awkward but not be “wrong”.
The Packers haven’t drafted a quarterback despite rumors they were interested in doing so.
Again, these sentences aren’t wrong, but they would sound a lot better with “that” inserted after the nouns “allegations” and “rumors.”
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?
The washington cats 2. Which florida rats chase 3. They annoy vegas whores
It’s a question of where you put pauses and intonation, when sounding it out in your head (or to another person). If you read it monotone it makes little sense. Unfortunately, knowing how its said requires deciphering it first. A lot of english novels have stuff like this, you’ll probably find - you have to read sentences twice to understand what it means
There’s probably no way for me to prove to you that it makes sense to me, unless you learn how to make sense of it yourself. I mentioned “which” and “they” because, as an english speaker knowing context about cats and rats, i can infer what connective could go there, but i don’t need it because without the connectives we get a more colloquial informal way of saying it all.
Is english your first language or is something else ?
Not an essential word if you the listener have context! It’s just that understanding this phrase is reliant on reader knowing context (i…e either that buffalo tend to buffalo buffalo OR just the theory/gimmick of the sentence itself.)
Also i believe OP made some effort to indicate via Capitalisation that one repeated buffalo is a proper noun. (Place name)
See: Buffalo(pl) buffalo(an) Buffalo(pl) buffalo(an) buffalo(vrb), buffalo(vrb) Buffalo(pl) buffalo(an)
pl: place, an: animal, vrb: verb.
Washington cats [missing] florida rats chase, annoy Vegas whores.
There needs to be a which, that, who or something in that missing space for a proper sentence structure.
Here’s some discussion of omitting “that” after a noun. I don’t agree with Grammar Girl on what sounds awkward but she acknowledges that sentences can sound awkward but not be “wrong”.
https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/articles/when-to-delete-that/
Quaterback Love [that] Greenbay Packers drafted, played Detroit Lions.
Some sentences can drop the relative pronouns and still make sense. This isn’t one of them.
“The quarterback the packers drafted” sounds fine to me
You’ve had to add “The” to make it make sense.
“Quaterback Packers drafted” doesn’t make 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?
Nope, that makes perfect sense to me without which that or who.
“Washington cats florida rats chase annoy vegas whores”
It’s a question of where you put pauses and intonation, when sounding it out in your head (or to another person). If you read it monotone it makes little sense. Unfortunately, knowing how its said requires deciphering it first. A lot of english novels have stuff like this, you’ll probably find - you have to read sentences twice to understand what it means
I think you proved my point. You needed to add the word “which”. A pause makes the first part sound like a list.
There’s probably no way for me to prove to you that it makes sense to me, unless you learn how to make sense of it yourself. I mentioned “which” and “they” because, as an english speaker knowing context about cats and rats, i can infer what connective could go there, but i don’t need it because without the connectives we get a more colloquial informal way of saying it all.
Is english your first language or is something else ?
Are you saying the following sentence is perfectly fine English?
No. It’s missing at least one word.