This sentence probably worked better at a time when “buffalo” was actually a commonly used verb. It’s also made really confusing by using a “reduced relative clause” in a way that almost no native speaker would use it.
You can use a reduced relative clause in ways that aren’t at all confusing, like:
“The burger I ate was delicious” vs. with a normal relative clause “The burger that I ate was delicious”.
But this one is more like:
“Gazelles lions eat are slow.” vs. “Gazelles that lions eat are slow.”
I don’t know what exactly it is, but that is much more confusing. Maybe because the distinction between the subject (Gazelles) and the relative clause ([that] lions eat) is much less obvious, making it hard to parse.
Buffalo bison that other Buffalo bison bully also bully Buffalo bison.
There are three groups, the bullies, the bullied bullies, and the bullied.
American bisons from the city of Buffalo: (Buffalo buffalo)
[that]
American bisons from the city of Buffalo confuse: (Buffalo buffalo buffalo)
[also]
confuse American bisons from the city of Buffalo: (buffalo Buffalo buffalo)
Syracuse cows Syracuse cows confuse confuse Syracuse cows.
This sentence probably worked better at a time when “buffalo” was actually a commonly used verb. It’s also made really confusing by using a “reduced relative clause” in a way that almost no native speaker would use it.
You can use a reduced relative clause in ways that aren’t at all confusing, like:
“The burger I ate was delicious” vs. with a normal relative clause “The burger that I ate was delicious”.
But this one is more like:
“Gazelles lions eat are slow.” vs. “Gazelles that lions eat are slow.”
I don’t know what exactly it is, but that is much more confusing. Maybe because the distinction between the subject (Gazelles) and the relative clause ([that] lions eat) is much less obvious, making it hard to parse.