<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More on money</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/more-on-money/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/more-on-money</link>
	<description>Language in a word</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:06:06 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: abdul</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/more-on-money/comment-page-1#comment-9653</link>
		<dc:creator>abdul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:05:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/?p=372#comment-9653</guid>
		<description>Very interresting to see how words become obsolete.  Besides, these were supposed to be &quot;content&quot; words (as opposed to &quot;structural&quot; words). So the dichotomy which says  words like nouns, adjectives , full verbs etc. do not have weak forms  but words like prepositions, auxilairies etc. can have both, weak or strong,  does not apply here</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interresting to see how words become obsolete.  Besides, these were supposed to be &#8220;content&#8221; words (as opposed to &#8220;structural&#8221; words). So the dichotomy which says  words like nouns, adjectives , full verbs etc. do not have weak forms  but words like prepositions, auxilairies etc. can have both, weak or strong,  does not apply here</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

