Punctuate this sentence.

In my cultural anthropology class, my Prof. tried this little test with the class, punctiate this sentence:

Women without man would be nothing

(later I\'ll post what it means.  it\'s not super cool, but kinda interesting)

Women, without man, would be nothing.
Women, without man, would be nothing!
"Women without man" would be nothing. . .
Women, without man would be nothing.
Women, without man would be "nothing."
Women; without "man" would be nothing!
Women without man would be. . . nothing.

Eh. Really don\'t have the slightest clue what to do with that, although the only reason women have rights these days is because they had a scapegoat to blame their opression on, and they rode with it for quite some time, and they still are to an extent, even though women are nationally smarter than men in schools these days, but nobody seems to care.

See Yuz.

"Women, without man, would be nothing"

seems right to me....whats so "interesting"...i must have got it wrong, heh.

[CHIZZY]

heh heh,

you spelled "punctuate" wrong...  

Women without, man would be nothing?

Just a suggestion.

Women without, man would be nothing?

That was going to be my guess. All the other ways of punctuating it are too obvious.

The sentence is trying to make us think that women without men would be nothing, when in fact it\'s implying the opposite. That\'s the interesting part.

the intersesting thing about this sentence is that in a test 81% of males said:
Women without man, would be nothing

while 85% of women said it this way:
women, without, man would be nothing or
women without, man would be nothing

and thanks to small lady, we have both males and females represented in this post.

i thought it was just an interesting little tidbit.

I didn\'t participate because your use of the word "man" instead of "men" screwed me up.

By using "man," you make the sentence "Women without man, would be nothing" (the favored male response) inherently incorrect.  I kept looking for ways to make that type of punctuation solution grammatically correct, but it couldn\'t be.  

The favored female response, "women without, man would be nothing" isn\'t exactly correct either.  I don\'t think the use of "without" is correct in that sentence.  

Oh well, I guess you can\'t make it too perfect or it would become clear what the options are, and that would color the responses.

Originally posted by Coredweller
I didn\'t participate because your use of the word "man" instead of "men" screwed me up.

By using "man," you make the sentence "Women without man, would be nothing" (the favored male response) inherently incorrect.  I kept looking for ways to make that type of punctuation solution grammatically correct, but it couldn\'t be.  

The favored female response, "women without, man would be nothing" isn\'t exactly correct either.  I don\'t think the use of "without" is correct in that sentence.  

Oh well, I guess you can\'t make it too perfect or it would become clear what the options are, and that would color the responses.

I agree it wasn\'t gramitcally correct, but hey that was straight out of the book.  and technically the womans response is deffinetly incorect, because if you take out the part that is surrounded by commas, the sentence makes no sence.

Originally posted by theomen
the intersesting thing about this sentence is that in a test 81% of males said:
Women without man, would be nothing

DUH!!! Capitalize it!!!  J/K

so, what did you say when he gave you the test?

I went for the average male response, because I\'m a sexist pig!  Yay for me!

I went for the average female response, because I couldn\'t force myself to say that sentence in the sexist pig -way. Even if it is grammatically incorrect and sounds weird. Cause it\'s not true... Neither is the female response, btw.