<?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: The artist formally known as Prince</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/2009/12/the-artist-formally-known-as-prince/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/2009/12/the-artist-formally-known-as-prince/</link>
	<description>A blog about spelling, punctuation and grammar</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:28:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/2009/12/the-artist-formally-known-as-prince/comment-page-1/#comment-1464</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:22:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/?p=784#comment-1464</guid>
		<description>God forbid it say "lite" instead of "light".  I think it was just trying to save money like everyone else.  Money is tight; the sign can stay in my mind.  If it were that big of a deal to people, I think the company would have changed the sign by now.  That's just my opinion, n'est pas? HAHAHA!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>God forbid it say &#8220;lite&#8221; instead of &#8220;light&#8221;.  I think it was just trying to save money like everyone else.  Money is tight; the sign can stay in my mind.  If it were that big of a deal to people, I think the company would have changed the sign by now.  That&#8217;s just my opinion, n&#8217;est pas? HAHAHA!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cotter</title>
		<link>http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/2009/12/the-artist-formally-known-as-prince/comment-page-1/#comment-1433</link>
		<dc:creator>Cotter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:02:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/?p=784#comment-1433</guid>
		<description>According to this sign, one is lead to believe that Litecraft is not the new name for Lightbox, it's just the colloquial name for Lightbox. When speaking formally about the store, you should refer to it as Lightbox.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to this sign, one is lead to believe that Litecraft is not the new name for Lightbox, it&#8217;s just the colloquial name for Lightbox. When speaking formally about the store, you should refer to it as Lightbox.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paddy</title>
		<link>http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/2009/12/the-artist-formally-known-as-prince/comment-page-1/#comment-1392</link>
		<dc:creator>Paddy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:43:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/?p=784#comment-1392</guid>
		<description>Correct. The only homophones referred to are 'formerly' and 'formally'. Apologies for any confusion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Correct. The only homophones referred to are &#8216;formerly&#8217; and &#8216;formally&#8217;. Apologies for any confusion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sars</title>
		<link>http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/2009/12/the-artist-formally-known-as-prince/comment-page-1/#comment-1391</link>
		<dc:creator>sars</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:36:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/?p=784#comment-1391</guid>
		<description>Surely for lite and light to be homophones they'd both need to be actual words, no?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surely for lite and light to be homophones they&#8217;d both need to be actual words, no?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
