Two Weeks Notice

Merge is correct. Well both are correct.

If you say "two week notice" you usually precede it with "a" or "my". As is "I gave him a two-week notice." Meaning that "two-week" is the proper name for that kind of notice, which most people are familiar with as ample notice for quitting a job.

But both are correct, because you could say "I gave him three weeks notice."

I have just been having a prolonged argument with people at work about whether it is correct to write "three weeks notice" or "three weeks' notice". My view is that, since a week cannot possess the notice and it is not an abbreviation with an absent letter, it is incorrect to use an apostrophe. The notice, is anything, is possessed by the person to whom it is given (i.e. she gave him his notice). Merge, Purple Dragon, I see that you agree with this. Do you know of any printed source which would verify it?

Neither 'Two weeks notice' nor 'Two week notice' are correct. It should be 'Two weeks' notice' with the apostrophe signalling the omission of the word 'of' rather than possession of anything.

Merge was correct as, indeed, is the film title. It should read "Two Weeks Notice".
The word 'weeks' is a plural of the noun week, hence the terminal 's'.
Joachim: This is not the genitive case. It is not the notice of (or belonging to) the weeks in question; thus no apostrophe is required.
Selkie: There is no necessity for the word 'of' in this sentence. Moreover, even if that was the case, an apostrophe, when used to indicate omission, signifies a missing letter (or letters) not a missing word. So, again, no apostrophe is required.

Daedalus,

I'm not a linguist or grammatician - in fact I don't even know if there is such a word as grammatician - but I found the alt-usage-english argument convincing. Their example was "one day's leave" which to me seems to be essentially the same grammatical issue as "two weeks' notice". Actually it may be a better example because day is singular, so it becomes obvious that "one day leave" doesn't sound right.

http://www.alt-usage-english.org/genitive_and_possessive.html

Strangely enough I also had an argument about this at work just yesterday. I have recently left teaching in order to take up a less stressful position in a call centre and as I am rather new my supervisor (an averagely bright girl of about 24 or 25) decided she must check a letter that I had prepared for a client. I had assumed that she just wanted to check that I had the correct information in there, but she began to overtype the part where I had written "You will receive a renewal invitation in two or three weeks' time...", and removed the apostrophe. The only correction she had made was to remove the apostrophe, but as the document was to have my name on it I was concerned and explained to her that I was not happy to add my name to something which I knew to be incorrectly punctuated. She insisted that my way was wrong, and in hindsight I suspect that her confusion was due to the current furor about so called "grocers' apostrophes" (e.g. in banana's). I cannot claim to be an authority on the subject as I was a science teacher, not an English teacher,. however I have an English teacher friend who assures me that "two weeks' time" is correct, and since I have looked into the subject I also find this reference in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Weeks_Notice
where reference is made to Lynne Truss's book "Eats Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation." in which she cites the example of the film title "Two Weeks Notice" as incorrectly punctuated because there should be an apostrophe after the "s".
Now, whether Ms Truss is the final authority or not, I do not know, but my mother was extremely hot on punctuation and used to speak to me at greath length about it and so I follow her example. I am also supported by an English language graduate, another friend who is a journalist) not for "The Sun", I presume!) and a best selling book. There is another site, The Apostrophe Protection Society website, which may or may not be of help.
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/
Definitive argument for or against? I have no idea, but then who decides which words are allowed in scrabble? A scrabble society? I have no idea, again, but if so then there should at the very least be an English punctuation society, by Royal Aproval. I wonder what stance Her Majesty would take on the matter. We could always ask HRH Prince Charles, I suppose; he really ought to know! :-)

Can I, once and for all, put an end to this debacle? If I was to give notice of one week to someone I would give them one week's notice, not one week notice. In that one statement I have proved that the apostrophe is there because of the possessive. If you are giving more than one week of notice it is still a possesive and an apostrophe is still required. The rule about plural possessives comes into play and an apostrophe is required after the "s"; Two Weeks' Notice. End of argument. Don't listen to anyone who says differently; they have a twisted, illogical, and muddled mind. One more time for the record; Two Weeks' Notice. Thank you and good night.

Without wishing to blow my own trumpet, people say I'm an authority on English grammar and punctuation; I've been teaching little else for 46 years! I can confirm that the above posting is absolutely and unequivocally correct; it's "Two Weeks' Notice". Just apply the plural-possessive rule that, surely, every schoolchild's been taught.

I shall endeavor to resolve the issue in accordance with the previous three posts, albeit more succinctly...

One week's (worth of) notice
Two weeks' (worth of) notice

The genitive element of measurement is satisfied by definition as well as that of possession insofaras the week (or weeks) possesses the 'worth' even in the more commonly used case where the words 'worth of' are absent but still implied.

Furthermore, in spite of the fact that I happen to agree with Mahogany135, I take umbrage to his suggestion that those who do not have a "twisted, illogical, and muddled mind." On the contrary, anyone who takes the time to visit sites such as this one for the purposes of settling such questions is to be lauded for their efforts regardless of the correctness of their arguments. Language is ever evolving, and we should be as well.

People, people. I was in the Royal Shakespeare Company for many years, and have written novels. Language is ever changing like the roads of the planet, but most remain the same for convenience and posterity and nostalgia. That has not stopped the US (some 500 million) changing orientATed into oriented, the former still spoken by a modest 65 million Britons. Some would say the majority are correct. Two weeks' notice (correct) is one of those tricky language anomalies which is well documented and must be learned. We cannot decide there are more than 5 vowels because it is an hour or an MA. We spell yacht and xylophone as we do because they have evolved that way. There are rules governing spelling, capitalisation, and punctuation too. I agree with Pammi and highly recommend Lynne Truss's book (notice the split infinitive - not a hard and fast rule anymore). The ridiculous pitfalls created by poor punctuation are amusing, but also a warning. Play around with language and we're back up the tower of Babel. Those of you citing the genitive sense are correct, and those blinkered by the 'possession' of the notice must remember the length of notice is denoted by the time. It is not possessed by the two weeks but it is shaped by them in the sense and meaning. It is the same as The Hundred Years' War. Take away the 'Hundred Years' and it's just The War. Those citing the missing 'of' are correct in approach, the apostrophe is not replacing the word 'of' specifically, but realises and displays the connection between the weeks and the notice. There are many ways of saying it...the worker's notice was two weeks long, he was given notice of two weeks, the notice he gave was of two weeks in length (the weeks possess the length there) The history of the grammar will tell the unsure, go to the Oxford English Dictionary to be certain - those guys think these things inside and out, so you can be sure everything's been considered. Stick to the smallest rules and we're all singing from the same song sheet. 'Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves'. To some, the oriented person is of the Orient. To others Captain Kirk, and then Picard, should have 'gone boldly', and the debates continue with lessening detriment to understanding until many thousands went to see 'Two Weeks Notice' without thinking about the missing apostrophe. We must continue the debate, however trivial it may seem to most, and I applaud you all for your two minutes' toil reading this epistle.

Archie, I would agree that as an adjective, orientated is more common in the UK with oriented being more common in the USA; however, it would be incorrect to state that the American version was derived from the British version. The use of "oriented" actually predates "orientated" by about a hundred years. As a verb, orient predates orientate by about five hundred years (in the UK, of course). The noun, orientation, came much later than even the adjective, oriented, and around the same time as orientated. So, I guess you can back-form orientate from orientation or you can "forward"-form oriented from the verb orient (It would seem odd to form orientate from the verb orient, which may be why many find it unacceptably redundant). Interesting that when you "form" a "formation", you don't "formate" it, do you? It is formed, not formated (not to be confused with formatted). Of course, there are examples on both sides: note (noun and verb), notate, noted, notated, notation, etc. Each word has its own history and shades of meaning.

Since this post has been going on for nine years now, it's unlikely that the originator of the question (and the early responders) still care what we're saying, but one can find a definitive answer in what I have always considered to be the best reference source for writing: "The New York Public Library Writer's Guide to Style and Usage." (Sorry for the incorrect use of quotation marks, but this site won't support italicization or underscoring.) I quote:

Inanimate Possessives. Many writers claim that because inanimate objects cannot show ownership, the possessive should not be used. But others disagree, arguing that the alternative results in unnecessary wordiness. For example, some writers and editors would change "the train station's platform" to "the platform of the train station," although most today would not.

In phrases of personification of time and money, however, the possessive has always been acceptable.

this evening's storm
dawn's early light
5 days' leave
3 years' salary
6 dollars' worth
Seven Years' War

The possessive should not be used when no possessive relationship exists.

3 years ago
6 years later

[End of quotation]

This approach is echoed by the "United States Government Printing Office Style Manual," as follows:

8.14. The possessive case is often used in lieu of an objective phrase even though ownership is not involved.

1 day's labor (labor for 1 day)
2 hours' traveltime
a stone's throw
2 weeks' pay
5 or 10 billion dollars' worth
for charity's sake
for pity's sake

[End of quotation]

Finally, from "The Elements of Grammar for Writers," is this (at a more basic level):

How can you tell whether a word is possessive or plural? A possessive acts like an adjective, whereas a plural is a noun (nominal). That is, the possessive form of a noun will nearly always have another noun after it. Thus, the following reasoning is used in punctuating the phrase "two months' vacation":

1. Because there is a noun after the word "months," it should be possessive.
2. Now, because there is more than one month involved (two), you have a word that is both plural and possessive.
3. So you write the complete plural, "months."
4. Then you add an apostrophe: "two months' vacation."
5. You add no "s" after the apostrophe because you would not speak a second "s" sound out loud.

[End of quotation]

I won't bore you with additional references, but they all are in agreement: "two weeks notice" or "two week notice" is incorrect; "two weeks' notice" is correct. I now give you but a moment's notice that my comment is ending.