Talk:Longest English sentence
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Link does not work any more
For example:Who polices the police?The police police.Who polices the police police?The police police police.Who polices the police police police?The police police police police.
This process can be repeated ad infinitum. Eventually you get an absurdly long sentence like "Who polices the police police police police police police police police police police police police police police police police police police police police police..."? This can also be done in other ways, such as:
"I had a friend who had a friend who had a friend who had a friend who had a friend who had a friend who had a friend..."
I would have blanked the page and replaced it with this stuff, but I wanted to get some input first.
Later edit: oops I didn't read the whole article, it says this. But I think this stuff should be first (the article is not "longest published english sentence")
Appealing to the "rules of English grammar" to justify the assertion that there is no longest sentence in English relies on an acceptance that the English language is something that is produced by the application of rules. While this may be a foundational assumption of some linguistic theories, it isn't shared by everyone. Notably, when teaching linguistics to undergraduates, the idea that sentences can be infinitely long is often resisted: they understand the "rules" they are being shown and why they produce infinitely long sentences, but they reject the idea that all "sentences" produced by the application of these rules are sentences of English.
Of course, there can be no proof that English sentences can or cannot be infinitely long, only differences in opinion as to (eg) whether recursive generative grammar type rules actually produce the sentences of English (and only the sentences of English). One could argue that "Who polices the {police * 10000000}" is a sentence on the basis of the chain of reasoning given above, or one could make some inconceivability claim to deny that it is a sentence of English. These arguments would reflect different opinions about what makes something a sentence of English. The article should reflect these differences in opinion Yekwah 11:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because English grammar is extensible in this manner, it is mathematically provable to not be a regular language with a finite grammar, a key concept in theoretical computer science.[1]
This quote, removed from the main page, is either meaningless or incorrect. A regular language can produce a countably infinite set of expressions that are unbounded in length, just like natural language. As far as how long an expression can be that is produced by a class of languages, there is no difference between a regular language and a natural language. — λ (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first short story in Barth's 'Lost in the Funhouse,' 'Frame-tale' is a recursive and neverending sentence. It comes with directions to cut out a part of the page that is printed on both sides: the one side says 'Once upon a time there' and the other side says 'was a story that began,' with instructions to fold the piece like a mobius strip. When read, then, it is a neverending sentence that reads 'Once upon a time there was a story that began "once upon a time there was a story that began 'once upon a time there was a story that began "once upon..."'"' Although printed it's nothing more than 10 printed words, the sentence itself is theoretically neverending, making it the longest English sentence, or at least tied for it. 70.20.241.177 (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a quoted sentence in the main page "The rat that the cat that the dog chased ran."
But it seems to me that the clause "that the cat..." is not complete.Is it that the phrase should be "The rat that the cat that the dog chased chased ran." instead?
I mean, did the verification/grammar programme delete one "chase", assuming it's a repeated typo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.189.145.92 (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something is wrong with it. I think the comment about two chases in a row is correct. the_rat_that_the_cat_that_the_dog_chased_chased_ran. Or in other words:
The rat ran.The rat that the cat chased.The cat that the dog chased.
is the idea, but the sentence in the article is more like:
The rat that the cat ran.The cat that the dog chased.
The rat must have run the cat in a race or something, perhaps the rat is a gambler, and the cat is a cheetah. But what is the rat doing in this sentence? There is a missing verb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.0.8.156 (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't feel qualified to actually correct the text, I would like to point out that the stated length of the Molly Bloom soliloquy sentence (12,931 words) is contradicted both by the wikipedia article Molly Bloom's soliloquy and the cited reference "Sacks' muscle memories", both of which give the length as 4,391 words.94.72.198.66 (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Andrewtblake[reply]
I have never liked one of the examples given in the introductory sentence about how sentences can be arbitrarily long - this one: "The mouse that the cat that the dog chased ...." - it is hard to understand what it's trying to say, and doesn't obviously show how sentences can be extended. There was a discussion about it back in 2011 (see above) but no resolution. I'd like to kill it, as I think it's unnecessary. Any response? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
pure recursion doesn't work in natural language formation- Yes it works. Please do not confuse formation and comprehension. Shucks, my very natural neighbor after a couple beers can speak even fancier than that. :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)But this article is about constructing a long sentence, not about finding the limits of comprehension. It seems ineffective, at best, to say that there are ways to construct arbitrarily long English sentences, then to give an example that doesn't do that - it constructs an arbitrarily long non-sentence. The second example is a crappy sentence but it's a real, comprehensible sentence, and thus fits the purpose of this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
article is about constructing a long sentence, not about finding the limits of comprehension- Um, sorry, no. ""This work suggests a novel explanation of people’s limited recursive performance"". Staszek Lem (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure-- of course not. The article is to be {{globalize}}d and moved. When I wrote the previous comment, I already had some ideas. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Now that you have a strong opinion about "non"-sentences, let me remind you the Longest words page. I've been nibbling it here and there now and then, and we even had a brief altercation there. But now, after 3 months of {{cn}}, I will not object to a more aggressive butchering of it. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party, but let me add my 2c to that "The mouse that the cat that the dog chased ..." example. It's formally correct, insofar as it exemplifies recursion in grammar, but it's still not a very good example, because it's a very special and uncommon form of recursion: center embedding. Center embedding is notorious in linguistic studies exactly for the reason that led to the confusion here. It's a form of recursion and, as such, theoretically repeatable indefinitely, but it's known to place an extra processing burden on the brain that limits its practical application to not much beyond one or two levels deep. I bet that whatever linguistic source was discussing that sentence was quoting it to illustrate that point, not just recursion as such. A more intuitive example of how recursion can generate sentences of arbitrary length would be one that uses right-edge embedding, as in This is the man that owns the dog that bothered the cat that chased the mouse that ate the cheese.... Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
isn't a single sentence as such; it's a number of very, very long one-sentence sections broken up by more traditionally punctuated interludes and acting as discreet sections. Several of these sections could well feature on this article, but the novel itself isn't a single sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C92D:C101:ADBB:EBE0:5358:C23F (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about keeping a list here of the longest sentences in wikipedia, which would then become a project, to edit the worst of them and knock them off the list.Ccrrccrr (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You are absolutely correct.Ccrrccrr (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we certain that we have correctly quoted the recursive non-sentence:
I've stumbled over it for years. Judging from the lead-in sentences it should say "The mouse that the cat hit that the dog <did something, I dunno what> that the man frightened and chased, ran away" As it currently stands it makes no sense and tells the reader nothing.Yes, I've argued this before (see above) but I'm still right, darn it! Looking above, you'll see somebody else complained about it a full decade ago. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]