• Purox@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    In German the following is a completely valid sentence:

    Wenn hinter Fliegen Fliegen fliegen, fliegen Fliegen Fliegen nach.

    Which translates to when flies fly behind flies, then flies follow flies. The same works for seals:

    Wenn hinter Robben Robben Robben, robben Robben Robben nach.

    • mutter9355@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      The same works in Dutch:

      Als vliegen achter vliegen vliegen, vliegen vliegen vliegen achterna.

      Although my favourite form of that tongue twister is:

      Als vliegende vliegen achter vliegende vliegen vliegen, vliegen de vliegende vliegen vliegensvlug.

      When flying flies fly behind flying flies, the flying flies fly rapidly (“flying fast”).

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      English has Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo

      I don’t know what it means but I’ve been told it is indeed a full sentence.

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Some Hungarian prefixes can be piled on without limit, while still creating meaning.

      The word “úszni” means “to swim”.

      Úsztatni - to make someone or someone swim
      Úsztattatni - to make someone make someone swim
      Úsztattattattattattattattattattni - to make someone make someone make someone … make someone swim

      Can be done with any verb, and maybe some other suffixes as well.

      • jorm1s@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Strangely enough, this works in Finnish too:

        Uida - to swim

        Uittaa - to make someone or something swim

        Uitattaa - to make someone make someone swim

        Uitattattattattattattattattattaa - to make someone make someone make someone … make someone swim

        It’s almost as if they are related languages or something.

        • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s basically a mishmash of Ancient Ugric, Turkish, German, Slavic and Romani words with grammar that is an eldritch monstrosity, nobody really knows where it came from, and it is seriously weird.

          There are only two real tenses, but nineteen cases and two different ways of doing imperative, which are kind of equivalent but carry cultural and tonal differences in certain contexts.

  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The landlord of a pub called The Pig And Whistle asked a sign writer to make a new sign. When he saw it he thought that the words were too close together, so he said to the sign writer “I want more space between Pig and And and And and Whistle”.

    • BluesF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Inspired by the story, another landlord decides to name their pub “Pig and And and And and Whistle.” Lo and behold, the sign was cramped… Ther needed more space between Pig and and and and and And and And and and and and and And and And and and and and and Whistle.

          • eltrain123@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Pig & And, And & whistle. It’s focusing on the conjunctive. ’And’ is repeated because it is pertinent in both phrases.

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Ah see this one makes more sense but since it is a single sentence clause two of them are still redundant.

          • can@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            It is indeed a very convoluted way of making the requests. I would say more space between each word.

              • UmeU@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                I don’t believe that’s accurate.

                There are only two things in the list, pig & whistle.

                They want more space between pig and &.

                They also want more space between & and whistle.

                If we were listing three areas where they want additional space we would need at least one comma, and I would argue for the Oxford comma as well, however we are only listing two areas where we want more space and so no comma is needed.

                Sure it’s nearly unreadable, but I think the punctuation is correct.

                • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  If the same and is referred to twice then it should be a separate sentence clause requiring use of a comma. Since there is no comma there is no indication the and is the same both times.

                  Imagine saying “It was just me and dave and dave went driving” instead of “It was just me and dave, and dave went driving.” Yeah, maybe its the same dave, possibly readable, but its wrong.

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Nah, it’s referring to the first space by grouping the first and second words, “Pig” and “And,” and then referring to the second space by grouping the second and third words, “And” and “Whistle.”

          • can@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            “The Pig And Whistle” asked a sign writer to make a new sign.

            I want more space between “Pig” and “And”

            and

            [more space between] “And” and “Whistle”

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              Ovahea’s comment as I copy and paste is

              Pig and And and And and Whistle”.

              So if you remove the bonus ands, it becmes “Pig And And Whistle”.

              • can@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                But as someone else pointed out it’s the same “and”. The sign has three words on it. Between the words are spaces. How many spaces are there? What on either edge of each space?

  • Valmond@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    About the sign “Alpha and Bravo”, the spaces between Alpha and and and and and Bravo are too large.

    • foofiepie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Shavian, right?

      Edit: while some might think it nuts (it’s not like GBS was universally received, he was deliberately inconsistent), the idea of rebaselining phonetics from scratch was impressive.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I borrowed some ideas from it in how I use ðem, but ð letters are old english alphabet originals, same for ƿ but ðat would incur ð wraþ of even more annoying prescriptivists

        • foofiepie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Well, I celebrate your lunacy and perseverance. Maybe go all out in a few comments. It’s like a puzzle.

  • BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    “That that” can and probably should be replaced with “that which” in almost every instance it is used.

    Edit: or “when that”

  • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    You can create a sentence with an infinite number of “police”

    Who polices the Police?

    Police Police police Police.

    Who polices the Police Police?

    Police Police Police police Police Police.

    And so on…

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    It annoys me so much when I feel I need to write a sentence like that that I go to great lengths to restructure sentences to avoid it.

    …fuck

    • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Your grammar and sanity are better for it. Actually, most cases I’m which a double that is used you can probably get away with a single that.

        • Jax@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          “It is true that that’s almost never necessary.”

          I can’t wrap my head around this, logically it’s still a ‘double that’ but the short form makes it palatable to read/say.

  • m4m4m4m4@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I remember one time at r/peloton one of those tribalistic mildly-xenophobic nutcases told me, after sharing an article in spanish which had some ambiguous word, something to the effect that “spanish is the most confusing language in the world”.

    Yes, that genius told that. In english.

  • Inucune@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Have you heard the tragedy of pumping lemma? Have you heard the tragedy of the tragedy of pumping lemma? Have you heard the tragedy of the tragedy of the tragedy of pumping lemma?