<?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: Modern-day date-ing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/modern-day-date-ing/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/modern-day-date-ing</link>
	<description>Global English and language change</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:07:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sharon Creese</title>
		<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/modern-day-date-ing/comment-page-1#comment-871</link>
		<dc:creator>Sharon Creese</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:12:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/?p=2989#comment-871</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the link Chris - interesting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the link Chris &#8211; interesting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chris</title>
		<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/modern-day-date-ing/comment-page-1#comment-870</link>
		<dc:creator>chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:32:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/?p=2989#comment-870</guid>
		<description>another blogger - Vicki Hollett also wrote about this and you may be interested to see her take on it - particularly in the comments where she talks about the &quot;sound&quot; of the different options.
it clearly is something that is in the process of change.
Here&#039;s the link
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vickihollett.com/?p=1063&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.vickihollett.com/?p=1063&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>another blogger &#8211; Vicki Hollett also wrote about this and you may be interested to see her take on it &#8211; particularly in the comments where she talks about the &#8220;sound&#8221; of the different options.<br />
it clearly is something that is in the process of change.<br />
Here&#8217;s the link<br />
<a href="http://www.vickihollett.com/?p=1063" rel="nofollow">http://www.vickihollett.com/?p=1063</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sharon Creese</title>
		<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/modern-day-date-ing/comment-page-1#comment-869</link>
		<dc:creator>Sharon Creese</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:31:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/?p=2989#comment-869</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s interesting you say that, because ever since really getting into thinking about the issue of dates  (particularly while writing that blog), I&#039;ve noticed that I&#039;m tending to think &#039;twenty oh nine&#039; or &#039;twenty oh one&#039; instead of the &#039;two thousand and nine&#039; and &#039;two thousand and one&#039; that seemed so comfy before. It hadn&#039;t even occurred to me that changing the format I used for forthcoming years would also change how I thought about previous ones!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s interesting you say that, because ever since really getting into thinking about the issue of dates  (particularly while writing that blog), I&#8217;ve noticed that I&#8217;m tending to think &#8216;twenty oh nine&#8217; or &#8216;twenty oh one&#8217; instead of the &#8216;two thousand and nine&#8217; and &#8216;two thousand and one&#8217; that seemed so comfy before. It hadn&#8217;t even occurred to me that changing the format I used for forthcoming years would also change how I thought about previous ones!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chris</title>
		<link>http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/modern-day-date-ing/comment-page-1#comment-868</link>
		<dc:creator>chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:16:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/?p=2989#comment-868</guid>
		<description>Hi, the logical next question - once we accept twenty-ten etc as the dominant pattern - is in which year it will become acceptable to refer to 2009 as twenty o nine?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, the logical next question &#8211; once we accept twenty-ten etc as the dominant pattern &#8211; is in which year it will become acceptable to refer to 2009 as twenty o nine?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

