which is correct?

[Rigor Mortis]

I've inclined to write "twelve months' duration" rather than "twelve months duration." I asked google and, in fairness, it spent a little while thinking and told me both were grammatically correct.

I know people here know better than google.

 

[Homer Potvin]

That one's probably a pick 'em, but I'd go without the apostrophe. In my mind the "twelve months" is functioning more as an adjective phrase describing the "duration" than an object possessing another. Either is probably technically correct though.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I would go a little different. I would turn twelve-month into a compound adjective and so hyphenate it

Then, the noun is duration, so takes a singular article

a twelve-month duration

 

[Also]

I would also have trouble writing it without the apostrophe, as framed. Like the use of perfect aspect where called for, that apostrophe is a (not-so?) subtle indicator of careful correctness.

However, because c-groups (and presumably some readers) often incorrectly flag the apostrophe as a mistake anymore, I often sidestep the issue for them in the way that Louanne suggests.

 

[Naomasa298]

I might be inclined to write "twelve month duration", not months (with or without an apostrophe). Saves one keystroke.

 

[Homer Potvin]

I might be inclined to write "twelve month duration", not months (with or without an apostrophe). Saves one keystroke.

Yeah. I didn't notice that the first time. It's a clunky phrase either way. Seem like a plain old "year" but suffice in most contexts, but not all, obviously.

 

[CatrionaGrace]

I'd probably say, "for twelve months" or "for a year" and eliminate "duration."

 

[Trish]

I might be inclined to write "twelve month duration", not months (with or without an apostrophe). Saves one keystroke.

This is what I would do.

 

[Louanne Learning]

twelve month

This is a compound adjective and needs a hyphen

 

[Trish]

This is a compound adjective and needs a hyphen

"needs" is debatable.

 

[Stuart Dren]

What would one call a meeting which will last five minutes?

 

[Naomasa298]

What would one call a meeting which will last five minutes?

A quickie in the stationary cupboard.

 

[Rigor Mortis]

For context, it's a more formal situation for inclusion in a report. The full sentence would refer to, usually, "a [COURT ORDER] of twelve months' duration." Put into the sentence, I don't think it's adjectival. Until recently, I'd always have written it without the apostrophe but decided a while ago that it wasn#t correct even if it looked correct and the apostrophe was correct, even if it didn't look like it was.

"[court order] of a year's duration" doesn't convey the gravitas, yet "...of two years' duration" is fine.

What would one call a meeting which will last five minutes?

A gift from the gods.

 

[Naomasa298]

For context, it's a more formal situation for inclusion in a report. The full sentence would refer to, usually, "a [COURT ORDER] of twelve months' duration." Put into the sentence, I don't think it's adjectival. Until recently, I'd always have written it without the apostrophe but decided a while ago that it wasn#t correct even if it looked correct and the apostrophe was correct, even if it didn't look like it was.

I don't know about a legal report, but on an invoice or a quote, I would normally use "twelve month duration", with or without a hyphen as you prefer.

 

[Stuart Dren]

For context, it's a more formal situation for inclusion in a report. The full sentence would refer to, usually, "a [COURT ORDER] of twelve months' duration." Put into the sentence, I don't think it's adjectival. Until recently, I'd always have written it without the apostrophe but decided a while ago that it wasn#t correct even if it looked correct and the apostrophe was correct, even if it didn't look like it was.

"[court order] of a year's duration" doesn't convey the gravitas, yet "...of two years' duration" is fine.

A gift from the gods.

I think the word 'duration' is tripping us up. Or at least it's tripping me up.

No one would write "I have twelve month experience in selling auto loans." But experience is not presented as a singular in my example, as in "a twelve month experience."

On your original question, I would choose with the apostrophe. "a [court order] of twelve months' duration" which without the apostrophe would be "a [court order] of twelve months of duration."

 

[CatrionaGrace]

Legal documents are full of terms of art that make no earthly sense to anyone but lawyers.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

"Twelve months' duration" is correct. It follows the rules of possessive punctuation for plural nouns; the duration lasts for twelve months.

But if you want to avoid the whole mess, you can simply reverse the phrase, i.e.: "A duration of twelve months". Easy!

 

[Naomasa298]

It follows the rules of possessive punctuation for plural nouns; the duration lasts for twelve months.

If that were true, you'd say "six feet's tall". Possessive punctuation goes on to the thing that is possessing, not the thing being possessed.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

If that were true, you'd say "six feet's tall". Possessive punctuation goes on to the thing that is possessing, not the thing being possessed.

Agreed, you don't say "six feet's tall". English is my second language, but I'd guess the reason is that the word 'tall' doesn't belong to the word 'feet'.

But a long time ago, I looked up the rules about possessive punctuation and plural nouns. They told me as follows:

- If a plural noun ends with an 's', you must always add an apostrophe afterwards; for instance, "The dogs' tails wagged", or "My friends' cars followed each other".
- If the plural noun doesn't end with an 's', you add an apostrophe followed by an 's' (e.g. "men's clothing" or "children's toys").

That's right, isn't it? *crosses fingers* I've always followed those rules and never had a problem.

 

[Stuart Dren]

Agreed, you don't say "six feet's tall". English is my second language, but I'd guess the reason is that the word 'tall' doesn't belong to the word 'feet'.

Rath, I don't mean this as a challenge at all, and more to anyone willing to answer, but: why? Why does tall/height [category of measurement] not belong to feet [unit], but time/duration [category of measurement] can belong to month [unit]?


The possessive for time is kind of weird. Mostly because I've never thought that hard about it. Gee, thanks Rigor.

"An hour's time." The time that belongs to that hour. It sounds right. It is a common, if older, usage.

As Naomasa pointed out, it's not been in use for certain other measurements. Would anyone write "Over a ten miles' distance?"

We might do it for a season. A night may belong to winter. "A Winter's night." The end of a year could be "year's end." There's "month's end." "In a year's/month's time" is super common. Things can belong to a day or year, of course. "Monday's meeting." "That year's harvest."

Time of day, though, doesn't always get that same possessive treatment. We would write "Tuesday night" not "Tuesday's night." I suppose we may write "By Tuesday's End" though.