It takes a ten minute's walk

[englishhobby]

1. It takes ten minutes to get there.
2. It's a ten minute's walk from here.

Can we combine the two structures above and say:

It takes a ten minute's walk (to get there)?

 

[Chicken Sandwich]

1. It takes ten minutes to get there.
2. It's a ten minute's walk from here.

Can we combine the two structures above and say:

It takes a ten minute's walk (to get there)?

The second sentence is incorrect. It should be It's ten minutes' walk from here or It's a ten-minute walk from here.

 

[SoothingDave]

1. It takes ten minutes to get there.
2. It's a ten minute's walk from here.

Can we combine the two structures above and say:

It takes a ten minute's walk (to get there)?

You first sentence does not specify a walk. Context may do that. Or not. If I told someone that something was ten minutes away, it would be assumed in most cases that we meant by car.

Your attempt to combine does not really work. One would say "It's a ten minute walk."

 

[emsr2d2]

You can get over the ambiguity of the first sentence by saying "It takes ten minutes to walk there".

 

[konungursvia]

The second sentence is incorrect. It should be It's ten minutes' walk from here or It's a ten-minute walk from here.

It looks okay to me, by analogy with Shakspeare's preferred usage. The Winter's Tale. The two hours' traffick of our stage. If you correct the location of the apostrophe.

 

[5jj]

It looks okay to me, by analogy with Shakespeare's preferred usage. The Winter's Tale. The two hours' traffick of our stage.

I don't think I'd use Shaksper's 1610/11 usage as a model for what passes in 2013 any more than I'd use his 1616 spelling of his own name as a model for the form we should use today.

 

[BobK]

Nobody is trying to be an Elizabethan poet. What it takes is ten minutes. It doesn't take a ten-minute walk. If anyone takes a ten-minute walk they go somewhere on foot for ten minutes. The doer of this can't be an it.

b

 

[konungursvia]

I wasn't suggesting we should try to be Elizabethan poets either; but Shakespeare had such an influence on our language that many of his turns of phrase survive today, and since he mentions both Canada and America by name, I'm quite sure AmE has its roots centred in his era.

Whoops. I was saying 2 is correct, and intended to quote a member who said 2 is wrong. The suggested amalgam of 1. and 2. is certainly wrong.

Continuing my thoughts on 2, we can find other grammarians saying it's not wrong:

It's about a 3-minutes' walk. - Topic

Aspects of Modern English Usage - Paul Lambotte - Google Books

Sorry if I caused any confusion.

 

[BobK]

:up: When CS said 2 was wrong, I think (and assumed when I read it) he was talking about the position of the apostrophe (which is precisely as Lambotte says it is).

b

 

[Rover_KE]

Don't forget that a ten-minute walk is a useless way of describing a distance, unless you know how fast your reader can walk.

 

[SoothingDave]

I think most people would understand that you are talking about a person of average physical ability. Obviously, for a granny with a walker, it might take longer.

 

[BobK]

I wouldn't say 'useless' exactly, it's just not very precise. It isn't any more specific than 'a short walk' or 'a few minutes' walk'.

Of course, in holiday brochures ('a ten-minute walk to the sea') it means something like 'less than a mile' ;-)

b

 

[englishhobby]

Thanks to all of you, now I have a much clearer idea about the structures in question.)