Buttons' Buttons
« previous post | next post »
Below is a guest post/email by Preston C.:
I wanted to share a compact ambiguous sentence in the spirit of “Buffalo buffalo…,” but built from more ordinary English resources:
In Buttons’ Buttons, Buttons Buttons buttons Buttons Buttons’ buttons Buttons Buttons’ buttons’ buttons button.
One workable parse treats “Buttons Buttons” as a proper name, “Buttons’ Buttons” as a store, and button/buttons as verbs (“to fasten”). On that reading, the sentence means roughly:
In the store Buttons’ Buttons, Buttons Buttons fastens the buttons that his buttons’ buttons fasten.
What’s interesting is how it scales. If you try to extend it via clausal embedding (stacking more “that…” clauses), the result remains grammatical but quickly loses semantic coherence. But if the recursion is pushed into the possessive chain instead, it remains interpretable:
his buttons —> his buttons’ buttons —> his buttons’ buttons’ buttons —> …
This can be captured by a simple schema:
NP₀ = Buttons Buttons’ buttons
NPₙ₊₁ = NPₙ’s buttons
So unlike the classic buffalo sentence—which tolerates repeated clausal stacking—this construction seems to support stable recursion primarily within the possessive domain. More generally, it suggests a contrast between recursion that preserves a hierarchy of reference (as in possessive chains) and recursion that reuses or reassigns roles (as in clausal stacking), the latter degrading more quickly.
I’m curious whether this strikes you as a genuine pattern or just an artifact of this particular sentence. I haven’t seen this configuration discussed, though I may be missing prior examples.
Above is a guest post by Preston C. — comments welcome.
For background, see "Buffaloing buffalo", 1/20/2005
"and21", 5/24/2010
"Buffalo shit", 5/15/2021
jhh said,
April 26, 2026 @ 12:15 pm
Looking at the "translation," I'm stuck on the "…his buttons' buttons fasten." Can anybody gloss it more clearly?
Athel Cornish-Bowden said,
April 26, 2026 @ 2:38 pm
I prefer strings that don't rely on proper names or unusual meanings of words:
He said in reply to that that that that that that man had said was incorrect.
John, where Mary had had had had had had had had had had the teacher's approval.
Some punctuation may help:
He said in reply to that, that "that that" that that man had said was incorrect.
John, where Mary had "had had" had had "had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.
Bob Ladd said,
April 26, 2026 @ 4:50 pm
I have the same problem as jhh. What does it mean for a button to have a button?
martin schwartz said,
April 26, 2026 @ 7:47 pm
Does that button have a butt on it? Not when you button it.
martin schwarrtz
martin schwartz said,
April 26, 2026 @ 8:14 pm
A TV comedian of my youth was named Red Buttons;
he simultaneously had a minor hit song, "Strange things are happening". His Wiki indicates he was a tough fellow to work with.
His born name was Aaron Chwatt; the surname apparently
from Yiddish 'badass, rogue, a kinda dude with an attitude' vel sim.,
from Russian XBAT. Perhaps his having a surname Chwatt in the US
had a role in his personality. And/or maybe it was in his genes.
martin schwartz
martin schwartz said,
April 26, 2026 @ 8:30 pm
My russophone wife says the Russ. word I indicated means
'a savvy guy, a guy who can get around', from verb 'to grab, grasp'.
THe noun was a loanword in Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Polish,
maybe whence the Yiddish.
But apart from 'someone who knows how to press buttons'
that gets us far from our theme, whatever that was.
martin schwartz
Stephen Bowden said,
April 27, 2026 @ 9:53 am
Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
John, where Mary had "had had" had had "had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.
Interesting. I had read it as
John, where Mary had "had” had had “had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.
Completely the opposite result. It almost makes one approve of the Oxford comma.
Chris Button said,
April 28, 2026 @ 8:45 am
@ Bob Ladd
I have several
Haamu said,
April 28, 2026 @ 11:58 am
I, too, don't know what it means for a button to have a button. But aside from that, if I understand the definition of "stable recursion primarily within the possessive domain," it doesn't seem that remarkable.
You can have "your friends," "your friends' friends," "your friends' friends' friends," etc.
Similarly with "father," "barber," "sets of ()," and so on.
Lance said,
April 29, 2026 @ 11:58 am
Late to the party, but
> I prefer strings that don't rely on proper names or unusual meanings of words:
> John, where Mary had had had had had had had had had had the teacher's approval.
My second thought is that relying on use/mention distinction (i.e. quoting some of the words) isn't an improvement over proper names or unusual meanings. But my first thought is as always the person who punctuated it as
"John, where Mary had 'had', had 'had had had had had'. 'Had' had the teacher's approval."
Oprah said,
May 7, 2026 @ 11:03 am
Button provides small and large sizes as alternatives to the standard. Turn curiosity into action by researching, analyzing data, and evaluating sources.