Is it correct to say:

"Two weeks' worth of pay" (with apostrophe), or is it correct to say:
"Two weeks worth of pay" (with NO apostrophe)

Thank you

chriso_312...

The correct phrase would be the second one.
An apostrophe implies ownership, or possession,
as in "Harry's name" or "the Jones's cat".

Weeks are a term of measurement, rather than
an individual or group of people, and cannot
have ownership of, or possess anything.

Apostrophes are also used in contractions,
such as "can not" = can't" They take the
place of one or more letters.

A thorough discussion of the use to the apostrophe
is available at The Open University website, here:
http://www3.open.ac.uk/learners-guide/learning-skills/english/sect5/apostrophe.htm


Searches done, via Google:

"use of the apostrophe"
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22use+of+the+apostrophe%22

Please do not rate this answer until you are satisfied that
the answer cannot be improved upon by means of a dialog with
the researcher through the "Request for Clarification" process.

sublime1-ga

---

Clarification of Answer by sublime1-ga on 05 Jan 2003 22:46 PST

chriso_312...

Though I am not unwilling to be found incorrect, 
I stand by my answer in this instance. Comments
have been made noting that it is correct to write
"a day's labor" or "in three days' time".

In keeping with this, I believe it would be correct
to write "two weeks' pay", however the phrase "two
weeks worth" is subtly different. If the question
were asked, "How much pay did you receive?" and 
the answer were "two weeks worth", then, since the
word 'worth' is being used as an adjective, rather
than a noun, it is not something which can be
'possessed' as can the noun 'pay', as in the first
instance, or the examples given in the comments.

worth (wûrth)

adj. 
1. Equal in value to something specified:
   worth its weight in gold.
(or, worth the pay of two weeks of labor)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=worth&r=67

sublime1-ga

I respectfully disagree with the answerer.
Your sentence literally means:
"Worth of pay of two weeks," which obviously implies a possession,
thus an apostrophe is needed.
secret901-ga

To add support for my case, also consider "a day's work," which
obviously would be wrong if written as "a days work."
secret901-ga

To add even more support to this case, please see this helpful
tutorial from Purdue University (note the example of "three days'
journey", which shows that time can possess in English):
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html
secret901-ga

Dear Chriso_312,

Sublime1 is correct in his/her statement that the apostrophe-s
construction implies possession, but wrong in his deduction.  In your
example the weeks do possess something: the "worth".

As Secret901 correctly advises, the simple test here is to consider
the singular case, where any trailing "s" can only represent
possession and not be a plural form.  So if you would say and write
"one week worth of pay", it follows that you should write "two weeks
worth of pay".  But if - like me and most other people - you would say
"one week's worth of pay" (where the "s" must be possessive), it
follows that you must write "two weeks' worth of pay".

I hope this helps.

Carnegie

Agree with S901.  See B1 here: http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=591370

As a professional copyeditor, I also disagree with the answer.

The Chicago Manual of Style, one of the most popular style guides,
says this in Section 6.21:

"Anaologous to p[ossessives,and formed like them, are expressions
based on the old genitive case:

     "an hour's delay    in three days' time   Charles's having been
there"

Thought you might be interested in what the Australian Government
Print Service Style Manual (ISBN: 0 644 297791 9 paperback) states
regarding the usage of an apostrophe in this situation.

"The apostrophe in expressions of time is increasingly omitted when
these contain a plural form, such expressions being regarded as
compound nouns with sufficent adjectival force to make an apostrophe
superfluous:
in ten years time
twelve months detention
a five minutes start

but, [they suggest that it is correct to have:]
a day's labour
a month's notice

Therefore, this Aussie sheila suggests that it is correct to leave out
the apostrophe in the context of "two weeks' worth of work".

C'mon folks ...

Only an ENGLISH person can rule authoritively on the use of English.

Chicago? Ozland? NEVER!

There MUST be an apostrophe and that's final.

Yes, Sublime1, "worth" can be an adjective, but it is simply not one
in the expressions we are talking about: it is a noun.  (What noun do
you think it qualifies?)

And I must say I'm astonished by the advice of the Australian
Government
Print Service, quoted by Stressedmum.  If "The apostrophe in
expressions of time is increasingly omitted ...", I suggest this is
either a solecism or else a significant difference in Australian
English; it is certainly not so in British English.

Also, their example "a five minutes start" is a different kettle of
fish altogther, and wrong anyway.  In expressions consisting of
adjective-noun-noun, the default is for the first noun to be applied
attributively (as an adjective) to the second noun first, and then for
the adjective to be applied to the resulting compound.  If, as here,
we require the adjective to be applied first to the first noun and
then for this compound to be applied to the second noun, we must
hyphen the first two terms together to indicate this.  For example, a
"large computer disk" is a large disk for a computer, but a
"large-computer disk" is a disk for a large computer.

On top of that, we use the singular form in this situation even when
we are referring to a plurality, so the correct version of "a five
minutes start" is "a five-minute start".  We say " a six-inch nail",
not "a six inches nail"; "a two-horse race", not "a two horses race"!

I suppose this could be a difference in Australian English, but I'd be
surprised to hear that.

Carnegie