I'm playing with pretty printing, guided by Richard C. Waters' "Using
the New Common Lisp Pretty Printer"
While transcribing, I've run across another punning example, so I
thought I'd ask about the community's thoughts on punning.
(defun pr-string (s string)
(setq string (string string))
...
I've seen code like this before, and I understand that some folks in the
community think it is acceptable style. Personally, I think that it is
terrible style. Yes, the Lisp system can disambiguate, and yes, coders
learn to disambiguate, but it just seems so wrong, except in obfuscated
coding contests. On darker days I suspect that it is just Lisp coders
making sure that Schemers can't easily borrow code.
I realize that this is a difficult type of question to get an answer
from on Usenet, but are puns such as the above considered good (or maybe
acceptable?) style by the majority, or by just a few?
--
Cameron MacKinnon
Toronto, Canada
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: Lisp puns considered good style?
Date:
Message-ID: <4n06gwiqd.fsf@franz.com>
Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> writes:
> I'm playing with pretty printing, guided by Richard C. Waters' "Using
> the New Common Lisp Pretty Printer"
>
>
> While transcribing, I've run across another punning example, so I
> thought I'd ask about the community's thoughts on punning.
>
>
> (defun pr-string (s string)
> (setq string (string string))
> ...
>
> I've seen code like this before, and I understand that some folks in
> the community think it is acceptable style. Personally, I think that
> it is terrible style. Yes, the Lisp system can disambiguate, and yes,
> coders learn to disambiguate, but it just seems so wrong, except in
> obfuscated coding contests. On darker days I suspect that it is just
> Lisp coders making sure that Schemers can't easily borrow code.
>
>
> I realize that this is a difficult type of question to get an answer
> from on Usenet, but are puns such as the above considered good (or
> maybe acceptable?) style by the majority, or by just a few?
Ask yourself a similar question about poetry. The answer will be
just as hard, but at least you'll have more experience with which
to couch the question (assuming you have been exposed to poetry
for a longer period of time than CL).
How is poetry like (string string)? Well, first, you must get out
of your head that this is punning; at the very outside I would allow
that these two uses of string are homonyms, and not puns, since they
are not derived from different sources in their history. But I would
rather describe these not even as homonyms, but the same word,
used as different parts of speech, the first is a verb and the
second is a noun.
Poets do this quite often, making clever uses of words and sounds
that either trip lightly off the tongue, or which are specifically
hard to say (I consider tongue-twisters a form of poetry, for
example).
Two notes:
1. Poets can be good or bad, and the poems they make can be
good or bad. It doesn't make the concept of poetry bad,
though.
2. If I had been writing this lisp code as a poem, I would
have included yet another part of speech: an adcjective:
... (the string string)
Note that this phrase also contains an article, but that's not
fair, because it's not "string". Too bad macros couldn't be
defined on CL names, otherwise I might even do:
(defmacro string (&body body)
`(the ,@body))
:-)
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Lisp puns considered good style?
Date:
Message-ID: <wu5kwf2w.fsf@comcast.net>
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> How is poetry like (string string)? Well, first, you must get out
> of your head that this is punning; at the very outside I would allow
> that these two uses of string are homonyms, and not puns, since they
> are not derived from different sources in their history. But I would
> rather describe these not even as homonyms, but the same word,
> used as different parts of speech, the first is a verb and the
> second is a noun.
Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
subject (adjective noun verb) verb object
--
~jrm
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:24:23 GMT, Joe Marshall
<·············@comcast.net> wrote:
>Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
>
>subject (adjective noun verb) verb object
Maybe I'm dense ... (alright, not maybe).
Buffalo buffalo buffalo. Buffalo buffalo are better at it - they even
buffalo Buffalo buffalo. But leaving aside that our critter is really
a bison and one particular city by a big lake was neither named for an
animal nor pronounces its name with an 'a', I just don't get six and
the legend isn't helping.
George
==============================================
Send real email to GNEUNER2 at COMCAST dot NET
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Lisp puns considered good style?
Date:
Message-ID: <smg7y22m.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
George Neuner <········@dont.spam.me> writes:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:24:23 GMT, Joe Marshall
> <·············@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
>>
>>subject (adjective noun verb) verb object
>
> Maybe I'm dense ... (alright, not maybe).
Bison that are confused by ruminants from a city in New York are
themselves a cause of confusion to others of their species.
Analagous to:
Beans Boston residents eat contain ham.
Carpets Armenian immigrants sell cover floors.
On 2004-03-17 07:51:29 -0500, George Neuner <········@dont.spam.me> said:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:24:23 GMT, Joe Marshall
> <·············@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
>>
>> subject (adjective noun verb) verb object
>
> Maybe I'm dense ... (alright, not maybe).
>
> Buffalo buffalo buffalo. Buffalo buffalo are better at it - they even
> buffalo Buffalo buffalo. But leaving aside that our critter is really
> a bison and one particular city by a big lake was neither named for an
> animal nor pronounces its name with an 'a', I just don't get six and
> the legend isn't helping.
Given that:
1. "buffalo" is american slang for bison,
2. "buffalo" has, as one of its meanings "to intimidate, or overwhelm," then:
Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
means:
Bison from Buffalo, whom bison from Buffalo intimidate, (also)
intimidate bison from Buffalo (themselves).
So it is actually 8 buffalos long.
raf
From: Ray Dillinger
Subject: Re: Lisp puns considered good style?
Date:
Message-ID: <40590B1F.E53EF31@sonic.net>
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
> On 2004-03-17 07:51:29 -0500, George Neuner <········@dont.spam.me> said:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:24:23 GMT, Joe Marshall
> > <·············@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
> >>
> >> subject (adjective noun verb) verb object
> >
> >
> Given that:
> 1. "buffalo" is american slang for bison,
> 2. "buffalo" has, as one of its meanings "to intimidate, or overwhelm," then:
> Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
>
> means:
>
> Bison from Buffalo, whom bison from Buffalo intimidate, (also)
> intimidate bison from Buffalo (themselves).
No, it doesn't. I've seen buffalo as an adjective meaning "from Buffalo",
as a verb meaning "to confuse or intimidate", and as a noun meaning "bison",
but : It is not an adjective meaning confused or intimidated. That is
normally(?) expressed using the past participle "buffaloed," which can
take a following prepositional phrase, but not a following noun or verb
phrase as seen above.
Nor have I ever seen it as a ditransitive verb taking both a direct and
an indirect object. As a verb it is strictly transitive, taking a single
direct object.
Adding punctuation, however, we can get this:
Buffalo buffalo buffalo. Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Bear
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 02:35:01 GMT, Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net>
wrote:
>Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>>
>> Given that:
>> 1. "buffalo" is american slang for bison,
>> 2. "buffalo" has, as one of its meanings "to intimidate, or overwhelm," then:
>
>> Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
>>
>> means:
>>
>> Bison from Buffalo, whom bison from Buffalo intimidate, (also)
>> intimidate bison from Buffalo (themselves).
>
>No, it doesn't. I've seen buffalo as an adjective meaning "from Buffalo",
>as a verb meaning "to confuse or intimidate", and as a noun meaning "bison",
>but : It is not an adjective meaning confused or intimidated. That is
>normally(?) expressed using the past participle "buffaloed," which can
>take a following prepositional phrase, but not a following noun or verb
>phrase as seen above.
It is also a noun referring to larger cousins of the bison found in
Asia and Africa.
>Nor have I ever seen it as a ditransitive verb taking both a direct and
>an indirect object. As a verb it is strictly transitive, taking a single
>direct object.
>
>Adding punctuation, however, we can get this:
>
>Buffalo buffalo buffalo. Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Likewise I can only get 5 "buffalo" in a sentence without changing the
word form.
George
==============================================
Send real email to GNEUNER2 at COMCAST dot NET
On 2004-03-18 01:21:26 -0500, George Neuner <········@dont.spam.me> said:
> Likewise I can only get 5 "buffalo" in a sentence without changing the
> word form.
Again, "buffalo" (lower case) is *not* an adjective in this 8 buffalo
sentence. It is only a verb, and a noun. The only adjective is
"Buffalo" (upper case) meaning "from the city of Buffalo, NY."
"buffalo" is a valid plural form of the noun meaning "bison" in US
english. "buffalo" is the correct third person plural conjugation of
the verb "to buffalo" - "I buffalo" "you buffalo" "he/she/it buffaloes"
"we buffalo" "you (pl.) buffalo" "they buffalo."
1 adjective (from Buffalo) - "Buffalo"
2 noun (bison) - "buffalo"
[elided relative object pronoun -"that/which/whom"]
3 adjective (from Buffalo) - "Buffalo"
4 noun (bison) - "buffalo"
5 verb (to intimidate, overwhelm, confuse) - "buffalo"
comma - ","
[elided intensive pronoun - "themselves"]
6 verb (to intimidate, etc.) - "buffalo"
7 adjective (from Buffalo) - "Buffalo"
8 noun (bison) - "buffalo."
"The bison from New York that intimidate other bison from New York,
themselves also intimidate still other bison from New York."
Yes, this is quite possibly infinitely extensible by recursion, but
gets really hard to understand beyond 8 buffalo.
For example, 11 buffalo:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Buffalo buffalo buffalo.
NY bison (that) NY bison intimidate, (themselves) intimidate NY bison
(that) NY bison intimidate.
Also note that this particular series of buffalo sentences has nothing
to do with the proposed notion, linked to by another poster to this
thread, that there is a particular "Buffalo" style of intimidation
displayed by the bison in the Buffalo zoo. Just 3 parts of speech here
- noun: bison, verb: intimidate, adjective: from Buffalo, NY.
I would have to vote "no" for a proposed comp.lang.buffalo or
alt.one.word.sentences.buffalo - I've already wasted too much time on
this as it is %;^)
Raf
Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>>
>> On 2004-03-17 07:51:29 -0500, George Neuner <········@dont.spam.me> said:
>>
>> > On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:24:23 GMT, Joe Marshall
>> > <·············@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
>> >>
>> >> subject (adjective noun verb) verb object
>> >
>> >
>> Given that:
>> 1. "buffalo" is american slang for bison,
>> 2. "buffalo" has, as one of its meanings "to intimidate, or overwhelm," then:
>
>> Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
>>
>> means:
>>
>> Bison from Buffalo, whom bison from Buffalo intimidate, (also)
>> intimidate bison from Buffalo (themselves).
>
> No, it doesn't. I've seen buffalo as an adjective meaning "from
> Buffalo", as a verb meaning "to confuse or intimidate", and as a
> noun meaning "bison", but : It is not an adjective meaning confused
> or intimidated. That is normally(?) expressed using the past
> participle "buffaloed," which can take a following prepositional
> phrase, but not a following noun or verb phrase as seen above.
That's not that what he said. Though I think it was incorrectly
puncuated because the third through fifth buffalos are a restrictive
rather than non-restrictive clause and therefore should not be set off
in commas. It's been a while since I diagramed a sentence but this
tree is at least the right shape, if perhaps not 100% correctly
labled:
Sentence
|
+------------------+----+-----------+
| | |
Subject Verb Object
| | |
+---------------------+ | +----+---+
| | | | |
Noun phrase Restrictive clause | | |
| | | | |
| +-----+------+ | | |
| | | | | |
| Subject Verb | | |
| | | | | |
+---+----+ +---+---+ | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Adj Noun Adj Noun | | Adj Noun
| | | | | | | |
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
> Nor have I ever seen it as a ditransitive verb taking both a direct
> and an indirect object. As a verb it is strictly transitive, taking
> a single direct object.
>
> Adding punctuation, however, we can get this:
>
> Buffalo buffalo buffalo. Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
William Rappaport (who has a buffalo.edu email address) claims at this
url:
<http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/3/3-175.html>
To have been their at the creation. His version is a single sentence:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Buffalo buffalo.
The parsing is explained at the url.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 03:17:59 GMT, Peter Seibel <·····@javamonkey.com>
wrote:
>
>William Rappaport (who has a buffalo.edu email address) claims at this
>url:
>
> <http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/3/3-175.html>
>
>To have been their at the creation. His version is a single sentence:
>
> Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
> Buffalo buffalo.
>
>The parsing is explained at the url.
>
Rapaport's explanation covers only 6 - not the 10 given in his
construction. He says:
"Then, of course, you can make it more interesting by considering the
buffalo in the Buffalo zoo, the Buffalo buffalo. And their peculiar
way of buffaloing other Buffalo buffalo, so peculiar that, like the
Tennessee waltz which you do by Tennessee waltzing, they Buffalo
buffalo those other Buffalo buffalo:"
Using that you can only get:
"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo."
without changing the word form or adding addtional terms. His dancing
reference is not applicable: "Tennessee Waltz Tennessee Waltz" is not
English - the minimally correct sentence requires the definitive
article "the" as in:
"Tennessee Waltz the Tennessee Waltz."
Incidently, I'm (originally) from Buffalo, NY and neither I nor any of
my family have ever heard this particular story concerning the bison
in the zoo. I rather doubt the local animals' behavior is so peculiar
as to warrant its own (cutesy) descriptive term.
George
==============================================
Send real email to GNEUNER2 at COMCAST dot NET
I propose a new newsgroup `comp.lang.buffalo' to carry the intense
discussion of this new comp.lang.lisp-based programming language with
its single infinitely flexible operator: Buffalo.
The Buffalo Combinator:
((Buffalo (buffalo) (buffalo buffalo)) (Buffalo (buffalo) (buffalo buffalo)))
--
; Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu>
; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
; Signed or encrypted mail welcome.
; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark."
Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message news:<······················@mapcar.org>...
> I propose a new newsgroup `comp.lang.buffalo' to carry the intense
> discussion of this new comp.lang.lisp-based programming language with
> its single infinitely flexible operator: Buffalo.
>
Don't you already read buffalo.buffalo.buffalo? I thought everyone did.
Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> The Buffalo Combinator:
>
> ((Buffalo (buffalo) (buffalo buffalo)) (Buffalo (buffalo) (buffalo buffalo)))
Does that curry well?
--
Those who do not remember the history of Lisp are doomed to repeat it,
badly.
> (dwim x)
NIL
David Steuber <·············@verizon.net> writes:
>> ((Buffalo (buffalo) (buffalo buffalo)) (Buffalo (buffalo) (buffalo buffalo)))
>
> Does that curry well?
Undoubtly. You could probably even serve it to your hindu friends,
I guess a buffalo doesn't count as a cow?
;-)
--
(espen)
+ Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net>:
| David Steuber <·············@verizon.net> writes:
|
| > Does that curry well?
|
| Undoubtly. You could probably even serve it to your hindu friends,
No, no, no. He meant to ask, does that schoenfinkelize well?
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- Debating gives most of us much more psychological satisfaction
than thinking does: but it deprives us of whatever chance there is
of getting closer to the truth. -- C.P. Snow
Harald Hanche-Olsen <······@math.ntnu.no> writes:
> No, no, no. He meant to ask, does that schoenfinkelize well?
(without-irony
Does this imply that (at least in your opinion) Curry has gotten
too much of the fame here just because of his name?
)
--
(espen)
+ Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net>:
| Harald Hanche-Olsen <······@math.ntnu.no> writes:
|
| > No, no, no. He meant to ask, does that schoenfinkelize well?
|
| (without-irony
| Does this imply that (at least in your opinion) Curry has gotten
| too much of the fame here just because of his name?
| )
At least, Sch�nfinkel did it first, by a good margin.
http://computing-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Curried%20function
This is not to belittle Haskell Curry's contributions, however.
Calling it sch�nfinkeling is fun because most people have no idea what
I'm talking about.
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- Debating gives most of us much more psychological satisfaction
than thinking does: but it deprives us of whatever chance there is
of getting closer to the truth. -- C.P. Snow
Peter Seibel wrote:
> Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> writes:
>
>
>>Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>>
>>>On 2004-03-17 07:51:29 -0500, George Neuner <········@dont.spam.me> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:24:23 GMT, Joe Marshall
>>>><·············@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
>>>>>
>>>>>subject (adjective noun verb) verb object
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Given that:
>>>1. "buffalo" is american slang for bison,
>>>2. "buffalo" has, as one of its meanings "to intimidate, or overwhelm," then:
>>
>>>Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
>>>
>>>means:
>>>
>>>Bison from Buffalo, whom bison from Buffalo intimidate, (also)
>>>intimidate bison from Buffalo (themselves).
>>
>>No, it doesn't. I've seen buffalo as an adjective meaning "from
>>Buffalo", as a verb meaning "to confuse or intimidate", and as a
>>noun meaning "bison", but : It is not an adjective meaning confused
>>or intimidated. That is normally(?) expressed using the past
>>participle "buffaloed," which can take a following prepositional
>>phrase, but not a following noun or verb phrase as seen above.
>
>
> That's not that what he said. Though I think it was incorrectly
> puncuated because the third through fifth buffalos are a restrictive
> rather than non-restrictive clause and therefore should not be set off
> in commas.
Yes, the problems are in the translation. The commas, and I would go
with "which", not "whom". Oddly, the buffaloese was clearer.
:)
kenneth
--
http://tilton-technology.com
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
On 2004-03-17 23:46:20 -0500, Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> said:
> The commas, and I would go with "which", not "whom". Oddly, the
> buffaloese was clearer.
As for "whom," we do need a relative _object_ pronoun here, and it is
acceptable, if somewhat unusual, to use "whom" for animals as well as
persons. "which" or "that" are more common. I thought "whom" was
clearer because it is unambiguously an _object_ pronoun. Both "which"
and "that" can be both relative _subject_ pronouns and relative
_object_ pronouns; "whom" can only be a relative _object_ pronoun. [1]
I put the commas to reflect how the sentence would actually be spoken -
i.e., the commas mark the speakers pauses. The first comma is, as you
and others have pointed out, not gramatically correct, but is where
speakers who know what the sentence means pause when speaking it,
probably because they are aware of the elided relative pronoun at that
point.
The buffaloese is clearer to me as well - but then I'm from New York,
where people drop as many words from a sentence as they can get away
with.
Somehow, in my mind, I always hear a mook from Bensonhurst speaking
that buffalo sentence, probably while shrugging, palms up.
Raf
[1] "that" and "which" as relative _subject_ prounouns:
"The hand that rocks the cradle..."
" Of all the stars, the one which shines most brightly..."
Peter Seibel wrote:
> William Rappaport (who has a buffalo.edu email address) claims at this
> url:
>
> <http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/3/3-175.html>
>
> To have been their at the creation. His version is a single sentence:
>
> Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
> Buffalo buffalo.
>
> The parsing is explained at the url.
Theorem: This can be extended indefinitely.
Proof:
Define B(n) := "buffalo " repeated 2n times.
I claim that (with suitable capitalization)
B(n) can be parsed as a plural noun phrase for any n >= 1.
This is plainly true for n=1, the meaning being
"bison from Buffalo". Suppose it's true for n;
then for n+1 we have "buffalo B(n) buffalo" meaning
"bison whom B(n) confuse". Finally, I claim that
when n >= 2, B(n) can also be parsed as a simple (ha!)
declarative sentence: "B(n-1) buffalo buffalo", meaning
that B(n) confuse bison. QED.
Exercise for the reader: parse "oysters oysters oysters split split split",
which also generalizes to larger values of 3.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Lisp puns considered good style?
Date:
Message-ID: <wu5iw7bb.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> Theorem: This can be extended indefinitely.
> Proof:
> Define B(n) := "buffalo " repeated 2n times.
> I claim that (with suitable capitalization)
> B(n) can be parsed as a plural noun phrase for any n >= 1.
> This is plainly true for n=1, the meaning being
> "bison from Buffalo". Suppose it's true for n;
> then for n+1 we have "buffalo B(n) buffalo" meaning
> "bison whom B(n) confuse". Finally, I claim that
> when n >= 2, B(n) can also be parsed as a simple (ha!)
> declarative sentence: "B(n-1) buffalo buffalo", meaning
> that B(n) confuse bison. QED.
>
> Exercise for the reader: parse "oysters oysters oysters split split split",
> which also generalizes to larger values of 3.
The barn the horse the man saw ran past collapsed.
Joe Marshall wrote:
[I wrote:]
>> Exercise for the reader: parse "oysters oysters oysters split split split",
>> which also generalizes to larger values of 3.
>
> The barn the horse the man saw ran past collapsed.
Yep. :-)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
On 2004-03-17 21:35:01 -0500, Ray Dillinger <····@sonic.net> said:
> No, it doesn't. I've seen buffalo as an adjective meaning "from Buffalo",
> as a verb meaning "to confuse or intimidate", and as a noun meaning "bison",
> but : It is not an adjective meaning confused or intimidated.
No adjectives in that sentence, except the capitalized one, meaning
"from Buffalo"
Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
adj. noun, adj. noun verb, verb adj. noun.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1, 3, 7 Buffalo = "from the city of Buffalo, N.Y."
2, 4, 8 buffalo = "bison"
5, 6 buffalo = conjugated verb. inf. "to intimidate, overwhelm, or
confuse" (gotta love the lack of inflected verb endings in english that
makes this bit possible).
Elided are the relative pronouns "whom" and "themselves," but this is
permissible, even common, in spoken english:
Buffalo buffalo, (whom) Buffalo buffalo buffalo, (themselves) buffalo
Buffalo buffalo.
fully macroexpanded:
New York bison, whom other New York bison intimidate, themselves
intimidate still other New York bison.
Heck, maybe they're the same group of bison, they just take turns
intimidating each other - there's no way to know for sure from the
sentence, which, foolishly, uses only one word 8 times in a row.
However, the reading above is probably the most sensible one, and, to
my ear, the most idiomatic.
Raf
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> writes:
> Buffalo buffalo, (whom) Buffalo buffalo buffalo, (themselves) buffalo
> Buffalo buffalo.
>
> fully macroexpanded:
>
> New York bison, whom other New York bison intimidate, themselves
> intimidate still other New York bison.
Frankly, I don't understand what you've got against New York bisons,
there's sixteen other Buffalo cities in the USA.
Perhaps it's the bisons from Kansas who are intimiated by the bisons
from North Dakota, and who intimidate the bisons of Missouri.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> writes:
> On 2004-03-17 07:51:29 -0500, George Neuner <········@dont.spam.me> said:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:24:23 GMT, Joe Marshall
> > <·············@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
> >> subject (adjective noun verb) verb object
> > Maybe I'm dense ... (alright, not maybe).
> > Buffalo buffalo buffalo. Buffalo buffalo are better at it - they
> > even
> > buffalo Buffalo buffalo. But leaving aside that our critter is really
> > a bison and one particular city by a big lake was neither named for an
> > animal nor pronounces its name with an 'a', I just don't get six and
> > the legend isn't helping.
>
>
> Given that:
> 1. "buffalo" is american slang for bison,
> 2. "buffalo" has, as one of its meanings "to intimidate, or overwhelm," then:
>
> Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
>
> means:
>
>
> Bison from Buffalo, whom bison from Buffalo intimidate, (also)
> intimidate bison from Buffalo (themselves).
>
>
> So it is actually 8 buffalos long.
But it's ungramatical. Shouldn't we postfix 'es' for the third person
singular?
Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffaloes, buffaloes Buffalo buffalo.
Or for plural nouns?
Buffalo buffaloes, Buffalo buffaloes buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffaloes.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he doesn't
want merely because you think it would be good for him.--Robert Heinlein
http://www.theadvocates.org/
Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> writes:
>
>> On 2004-03-17 07:51:29 -0500, George Neuner <········@dont.spam.me> said:
>>
>> > On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:24:23 GMT, Joe Marshall
>> > <·············@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
>> >> subject (adjective noun verb) verb object
>> > Maybe I'm dense ... (alright, not maybe).
>> > Buffalo buffalo buffalo. Buffalo buffalo are better at it - they
>> > even
>> > buffalo Buffalo buffalo. But leaving aside that our critter is really
>> > a bison and one particular city by a big lake was neither named for an
>> > animal nor pronounces its name with an 'a', I just don't get six and
>> > the legend isn't helping.
>>
>>
>> Given that:
>> 1. "buffalo" is american slang for bison,
>> 2. "buffalo" has, as one of its meanings "to intimidate, or overwhelm," then:
>>
>> Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
>>
>> means:
>>
>>
>> Bison from Buffalo, whom bison from Buffalo intimidate, (also)
>> intimidate bison from Buffalo (themselves).
>>
>>
>> So it is actually 8 buffalos long.
>
> But it's ungramatical. Shouldn't we postfix 'es' for the third person
> singular?
>
> Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffaloes, buffaloes Buffalo buffalo.
>
> Or for plural nouns?
>
> Buffalo buffaloes, Buffalo buffaloes buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffaloes.
According to Merriam Webster, "buffalo", "buffaloes", and "buffalos"
are all acceptable as the plural form.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> I'm playing with pretty printing, guided by Richard C. Waters' "Using
> the New Common Lisp Pretty Printer"
>
> While transcribing, I've run across another punning example, so I
> thought I'd ask about the community's thoughts on punning.
>
> (defun pr-string (s string)
> (setq string (string string))
> ...
>
> I've seen code like this before, and I understand that some folks in the
> community think it is acceptable style. Personally, I think that it is
> terrible style. Yes, the Lisp system can disambiguate, and yes, coders
> learn to disambiguate, but it just seems so wrong, except in obfuscated
> coding contests. On darker days I suspect that it is just Lisp coders
> making sure that Schemers can't easily borrow code.
>
> I realize that this is a difficult type of question to get an answer
> from on Usenet, but are puns such as the above considered good (or maybe
> acceptable?) style by the majority, or by just a few?
You'd hate my sometimes catch-all methods:
(defmethod compute-something-useful ((nada null)) nil)
Hey, we're geeks. This is how we amuse ourselves when we have gone too
long without social contact. And i think as long as the idiocy is at
some super-micro level where the reader will get a shock but then
conclude "I don't think this is why my Quicktime movie conversion isn't
working", it's OK.
kt
--
http://tilton-technology.com
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> You'd hate my sometimes catch-all methods:
>
> (defmethod compute-something-useful ((nada null)) nil)
>
> Hey, we're geeks. This is how we amuse ourselves when we have gone too
> long without social contact.
I once had to dig out bugs in a >100,000 LOC project that was written
in such a style. The most frequently used variable name was "s".
Half of the recommendations of "How to write unmaintainable code" [1]
were actually implemented. (I didn't know about this fine howto at
that time, but when I finally discovered it I was moved to tears:
suddenly I felt that I was not alone in my pain.)
I finished the job. But since that time, whenever I see code like
above, I throw it away immediately. I feel, this policy has greatly
increased my personal productivity.
[1] http://www.strauss.za.com/sla/code_std.html
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> You'd hate my sometimes catch-all methods:
>
> (defmethod compute-something-useful ((nada null)) nil)
Hmm. I do this all the time? Where's the catch :-)?
well, I usually add comments, like ";; bogus default method" or
even something slightly useful:
(defmethod notify-customer-cancelled ((order bo-db:order)
(canc null))
;; do nothing - nothing happened
)
--
(espen)
Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> wrote:
> (defun pr-string (s string)
> (setq string (string string))
> are puns such as the above considered good (or maybe acceptable?)
> style by the majority
In this case, the parameter called STRING is actually a string
designator. So I would probably do something like
(defun pr-string (s string-designator)
(let ((string (string string-designator)))
...))
And yes, I think that using STRING twice with two different meanings
on the same line is perfectly acceptable.
Arthur Lemmens
Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> writes:
> I'm playing with pretty printing, guided by Richard C. Waters' "Using
> the New Common Lisp Pretty Printer"
>
> While transcribing, I've run across another punning example, so I
> thought I'd ask about the community's thoughts on punning.
>
> (defun pr-string (s string)
> (setq string (string string))
> ...
This is my favorite (from McCLIM):
(defmethod graft ((graft graft))
graft)
--
Robert Strandh
Hi Cameron MacKinnon,
> I'm playing with pretty printing, guided by Richard C. Waters' "Using
> the New Common Lisp Pretty Printer"
>
> While transcribing, I've run across another punning example, so I
> thought I'd ask about the community's thoughts on punning.
>
> (defun pr-string (s string)
> (setq string (string string))
> ...
>
> I've seen code like this before, and I understand that some folks in the
> community think it is acceptable style. Personally, I think that it is
> terrible style. Yes, the Lisp system can disambiguate, and yes, coders
> learn to disambiguate, but it just seems so wrong, except in obfuscated
> coding contests. On darker days I suspect that it is just Lisp coders
> making sure that Schemers can't easily borrow code.
>
> I realize that this is a difficult type of question to get an answer
> from on Usenet, but are puns such as the above considered good (or maybe
> acceptable?) style by the majority, or by just a few?
There is no better place in the Lisp community to have this question
answered.
It is acceptable style. If a Lisper is choosing whether to name a list
LIST or LST, many will choose LIST. A famous example of the choice of LST
is by Paul Graham in his book on macrology ("On Lisp").
One specific problem with contracting STRING is that STR is still
ambiguous between strings and streams.
You'll also commonly see declarations look like (declare (string string))
or (declare (list list)). Even if you occasionally forget which order to
put the type and the variable in doesn't matter :-)
The best guide to Lisp style is this presentation by Norvig and Pitman:
<http://www.norvig.com/luv-slides.ps>
Regards,
Adam
Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> I thought I'd ask about the community's thoughts on punning.
Thanks for all the responses, even if some of them were just an attempt
to buffalo the OP ;-)
--
Cameron MacKinnon
Toronto, Canada