Talk:Two Weeks Notice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
is it really impromperly punctuated? I'm no english major but the "correct" (or so it's called by this article) would imply ownership of notice or be expandable to two weeks is notice?
I woudl guess Two weeks notice is correct seeing as how the notice is for two weeks. The same going for say a one day notice. One day notice is correctly punctuated so take it to the next level with two weeks notice.
Note that if no one responds to this post, I will remove that sentence.Bubbleboys 04:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well that isn't entirely correct, it should be One Day's Notice. So yes, the author is correct in her deduction. Wangfoo 04:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Two Week's NoticeTwo Weeks' Notice is correct, because it is a short version of Notice of Two Weeks. —Daniel (‽) 15:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, everybody stop being ungrammatical, please. (*cough*Dbmag9*cough*) If I give you notice, and I give you one day's worth of notice, then I have given you one day's notice; or alternatively I have given you a one-day notice. (Mark the hyphen.) If I give you two weeks' worth of notice (mark the placement of the apostrophe), then I have given you two weeks' notice. On the other hand, it's idiomatically just as correct to say that I have given you a time period of two weeks as notice; or, eliding the useless words, that I have given you two weeks (as) notice. Analogously, I could give you two yards' (worth of) head start, or two yards (as a) head start. Or, of course, I could give you a two-yard head start, which I think is the most idiomatic expression in that case; but "give two-week notice" doesn't scan at all.
Short answer: Either way can be idiomatically correct, but the apostrophized version is much more likely to appeal to the sort of faux pedant who would read Eats, Shoots and Leaves (or talk about "people whom I think are less pedantic than I"). ;-) Hope this helps. --Quuxplusone 04:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)