It is grammatically correct, since nouns can be verbed -- chicken can be a noun, verb and even adjective, even though its verb form doesn't have a defined meaning -- it's just meaningless. Think of it like this:
It doesn't lend itself well to strings of words longer than 3 though, because you can't "chicken" someone, as far as I know - and I don't intend on visiting Urban Dictionary to find out.
Comments
"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" would have at least been grammatically correct.
It is grammatically correct, since nouns can be verbed -- chicken can be a noun, verb and even adjective, even though its verb form doesn't have a defined meaning -- it's just meaningless. Think of it like this:
This will parse, it just won't compile, since we're missing the definition of struct chicken.Contrast with "chicken go fly", which is grammatically incorrect, but meaningful.
It does have a defined meaning, doesn't it? "to chicken (out of something)".
I though it was grammatically incorrect anyway i.e.
(the) (adj)chicken (name)chicken (verb)chicken
misses an "s" either on the verb or the name.
But it could be an imperative form perhaps? As in "coward poultry, get out of there"
Hah, that is exactly what I thought.
It doesn't lend itself well to strings of words longer than 3 though, because you can't "chicken" someone, as far as I know - and I don't intend on visiting Urban Dictionary to find out.