Punctuate the following to make sense...................!?

Question

Arthur where Ben had had had had had had had had had was correct, meaning Ben was correct.

Answer 1

Arthur, where Ben had had "had had" had had "had"; "had had" was correct, meaning Ben was correct

Answer 2

This is impossible, I am excellent with English and this is not possible, now if you were to say, Read this and write down what the sentence really means then maybe, yes. The word "where" means..where is something, or where are you etc, so, how can "Arthur where Ben" actually mean anything? Its grammatically wrong

Answer 3

It can never make sense. The closest one can get is:
Arthur [answered] where Ben had, [and] was correct; meaning that Ben was correct.

Answer 4

QuietWalker now you're just talking "smart" to make others feel bad. Did you read the other answers before you answered? I'm pretty sure a couple of them are very correct. You need to go find a Snobby Smart People Club and go be stuck up there. I really like this one, it's a good riddle. Nice job =)

Answer 5

a million. no 2. see answer a million. at the same time as all of us comprehend that that's vitally stupid, the before part of the tale is even more effective stupid, as is the actual undeniable reality that Balaam not in any respect talked to the Hebrews, so that they could have heard this from rumour. to placed this in attitude, the donkey ought to not purely ought to make certain the "angel of death", notwithstanding it ought to evade it and therefore keep Balaam, not once yet 3 cases - this is a some distance more effective feat than speaking, now to not coach it is means the angel that ought to "get ahead" to ambush them, ought to not capture as a lot because the donkey (wait, uh, what?). the different element to be conscious is that none of this tale in contact the Hebrew people. They were not there with Balaam and his donkey and they were not there at the same time as Balaam prophesied for his or her enemy. in short, the purely way the Hebrews ought to have nicely-known about that's from rumour.

Answer 6

There is no structure of this nature in the English language. It is neither correct nor capable of being made correct. If it is supposed to represent an exchange of ideas, then you're attempting to play an silly semi intellectual game in which you are the loser.

Answer 7

#1 "...Arthur where?"
#2 "Ben had-"
#1 "had?"
#2 "had had-"
#1 (angrily) "had had? had!
#2 "had...(stutters) had..."
#1 (anxiously) "had?..."
#2 (shouts) "was correct!!!"
#1 (in awe) "Meaning Ben was-"
#2 "Correct!"

#1 keeps on cutting #2 off... (#2 cuts off #1 in midsentence at the end) They keep the meaning of their conversation to themselves.

Answer 8

Other than some minor punctuation and capitalization omissions by Relicurl and Me (the other poster), their answers were most correct by using dialogue.

Well done!

Answer 9

Arthur, while Ben had had "had", had had "had had". Had "had" was correct, meaning Ben was correct.





Now you punctuate this!
Badger badger badger badger badger

Answer 10

Right - next problem:
Make sense of James Joyce