Talk:Nor Loch

message: What is 'controversial' about the apostrophe after the r? ::Supergolden:: 11:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apostrophes often denote missing letters. It is controversial whether there actually are any missing letters in Nor. Compared to English North there are but compared to Scots Nor there aren't. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure North isn't a legit Scots word?--Nydas 19:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what you're calling Scots, and what period you're referring to. "Nor Loch" is the most appropriate title for this article, with "North Loch" and "Nor' Loch" being redirects. Thanks/wangi 20:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any sources which state that the Nor' is a case of an apologetic apostrophe?--Nydas 22:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty, starting with Fife's book itself. --MacRusgail 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've had a quick look at Fife's book, and I couldn't find anything about the apologetic apostrophe. Could you supply a page number? He did state that the loch was NOT used for drinking water, except for animals. Other sources, however, state that it was.--Nydas 15:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, people drink out of the Ganges, but most westerners wouldn't touch water from there. I suppose it would depend how dirty it was, how rich you were and how well supplied otherwise. Probably the time period too, no doubt. Fife doesn't seem to use the apostrophe in the title anyway (I had to look it up online, I don't have a hard copy to hand).--MacRusgail 17:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care about the name of the article, it's this 'controversy' that's bothering me. There's no evidence of such a thing.--Nydas 18:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a general controversy over the apologetic apostrophe, rather than this specific usage. Some people do complain about its use here though. --MacRusgail 11:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no reliable, third party sources that say this is a specific usage of the apologetic apostrophe. Given that North is a legit Scots word and 'North Loch' is used on very old maps, the claim is groundless.--Nydas 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nor'

message: It's satisfying to have a definite point in time from which to date the loch's origin, but the information given here, apparently from a website, does not agree with Malcolm Fife's well-researched book on the subject. He states that many historians consider 1450 to be the date of the loch's creation, i.e. in the reign of James II, before discussing the possibility of it existing earlier, though the evidence for this is inconclusive. Kim Traynor 23:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It might have been dredged at this point, but certainly there is ample evidence of a marsh or water body there long before then.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loch's origins 

message: Are there any historic maps around the net showing exactly the boundaries of the old loch?  It be really interesting if we could find this, because then someone could superimpose the current street grid over it to show exactly where it was. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's much of an issue. It's bounded on two sides by pretty steep slopes.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not whether it's a big issue as much as my own curiosity, and if someone wanted to take that further, it'd be appreciated.  I just want to see the boundaries over the current city center layout. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The boundaries are entirely within Princes Street Gardens, with one small exception. The loch appears to have extended east of the Mound at some points in history. The Mound is artificial. The western terminus is roughly parallel to the end of Edinburgh rock, next to where the two churches are nowadays.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact Boundaries 

message: Substituted at 01:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment