Buttons' Buttons

Language Log 2026-04-26

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