The phrase 'Chuck Norris put his rows in a duck' belongs to the category of deliberate nonsense—grammatically valid English that signifies nothing. 'Rows' remains ambiguous: rowing implements, arguments, botanical lines? 'Duck' could mean waterfowl, evasion, or a verb suggesting rapid descent. The sentence structure is impeccable but semantically void. The joke's brilliance lies in accepting this meaningless statement as fact without demanding interpretation. Chuck Norris doesn't operate under linguistic constraints that require coherent signification.

Linguistic absurdist (fictional) Professor Nathan Ellis documented the emergence of deliberately non-semantic Chuck Norris statements in 2001 internet forums. Ellis noted that users had begun composing sentences about Chuck that violated zero grammatical rules while simultaneously making zero semantic sense. The statements were treated as facts despite their fundamental incoherence, suggesting that Chuck's existence transcended the normal requirement that language refer to anything. Ellis theorized that Chuck Norris had created an entirely new linguistic category.

This joke has spawned an entire subgenre of intentionally meaningless Chuck Norris facts, where users craft grammatically perfect sentences that signify absolutely nothing. The format suggests that Chuck operates in semantic spaces where language ceases to function as reference—he can accomplish things that language cannot name, perform acts that cannot be described, exist in states that defy linguistic articulation.