had
James, while John had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.
This is an example of epizeuxis through the repetition of 'had' up to 11 times in sequences like 'had had'. It describes a scenario where two students (James and John) used different phrasing in a sentence: John used 'had' where 'had had' was more appropriate, and the teacher preferred James's version with 'had had' for clarity in past perfect tense.
that
It is true for all that that that that that that that refers to is not the same that that that that refers to.
This demonstrates epizeuxis with 'that' repeated up to 7 times consecutively. 'That' serves multiple roles (demonstrative pronoun, relative pronoun, conjunction), creating a grammatically correct but complex sentence distinguishing between different referents of 'that' in a meta-linguistic way.
buffalo
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
An example of epizeuxis with 'buffalo' repeated 8 times. 'Buffalo' functions as a noun (the animal bison), a proper noun (the city Buffalo, NY), and a verb (to bully or intimidate). The sentence means: Bison from Buffalo that other bison from Buffalo bully, in turn bully other bison from Buffalo.
police
Police police Police police police police Police police.
This shows epizeuxis with 'police' repeated 8 times. 'Police' acts as a noun (law enforcement officers) and a verb (to regulate or control). It parses as: Police officers from the city of Police whom other Police police officers police, police other Police police officers.
will
Will, will Will will Will Will's will?
Epizeuxis here repeats 'will' 7 times. 'Will' is used as a modal verb (future tense), a verb (to desire or bequeath), a proper name (Will), and a noun (a legal testament). The sentence directs an interrogetory to (a first person named) Will regarding if (a second person named) Will desires to bequeath (yet a third person named) Will's will (document) to (a final fourth) Will.
and
There should be more space between fish and "and" and "and" and chips.
This illustrates epizeuxis with 'and' repeated 5 times in the phrase 'and "and" and "and" and'. It refers to a poorly spaced sign reading 'fish andandandand chips,' suggesting better spacing between 'fish' and the repeated 'and's in 'and chips.'
reservation
If you were to second-guess your decision to book time to visit a Native American community, that would be a reservation reservation reservation.
Epizeuxis with 'reservation' repeated 3 times at the end. 'Reservation' means a booking (time slot), a doubt (having reservations), and land set aside for Native Americans (a reservation). The sentence describes having doubts about a booking to visit such a community.
is
The issue is, is that we need to clarify what it is.
In this sentence, the word "is" appears twice consecutively in the phrase "is, is." The first "is" is part of the introductory phrase "The issue is," which sets up the subject and acts as a copula linking the subject "The issue" to the rest of the sentence. The second "is" serves as the main verb in the clause "is that we need to clarify what it is," connecting the subject to the predicate. This construction, while not common in formal writing, is grammatically valid, especially in spoken English, where the repeated "is" acts as a stylistic pause or emphasis to reset the sentence for clarity.
fish
Fish fish fish fish fish fish fish.
The sentence "Fish fish fish fish fish fish fish" is a grammatically correct English sentence, leveraging the multiple meanings of the word "fish." In this context, "fish" can function as a noun referring to the animal, a verb meaning to catch fish, and, in some interpretations, as an adjective or part of a compound noun (e.g., "fish fish" could be parsed as fish that are caught by fishing). The sentence can be understood as a complex structure describing fish (the noun) that fish (the verb) for other fish, which in turn fish for other fish, and so on. For a clearer interpretation, consider a simplified version: "Fish fish fish," which can mean "Fish (that are caught by) fish (that) fish."
because
I couldn’t attend the meeting because, because of the storm, the roads were closed.
In this sentence, the word "because" appears twice in a row, separated by a comma. The first "because" introduces the reason for not attending the meeting, while the second "because" is part of the phrase "because of the storm," which explains why the roads were closed. This construction is grammatically correct, as the comma clarifies the distinct roles of each "because"—one as a conjunction for the main clause and the other within a prepositional phrase.