You said (#145): I think you were when you dishonestly suggested that the Reconquista was an event that happened 20 generations and 6 centuries after the Moorish conquest. (Emphasis mine)
My response was: It did happen then. Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella's forces in 1492.
Note that "it" and "then" both refer to previously mentioned ideas. "It" clearly refers to the Reconquista, the subject of my suggestion, according to your own characterization. "Then" clearly refers to a time period 20 generations and 6 centuries after the Moorish conquest, according to your own characterization of my suggestion.
Therefore, the meaning of my post is clearly:
The Reconquista did happen 20 generations and 6 centuries after the Moorish conquest. Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella's forces in 1492.
Since we both agree with your the Moorish conquest occurred shortly before the Reconquista began in the early 8th century, 20 generations and 6 centuries after the Moorish conquest marks the period in question as being the 14th century, which basic math shows to be 6 centuries after the 8th century.
You keep harping on the fact that I mentioned the defeat of Granada. Perhaps you were unaware, but the defeat of Granada marks the end of the Reconquista, as it consisted of the defeat of the last Moorish kingdom in Iberia.
Therefore, the meaning of my post can be further clarified as:
The Reconquista did happen 20 generations and 6 centuries after the Moorish conquest. The end of the Reconquista occurred in 1492.
Or even more clearly:
The Reconquista did happen in the 14th century. The end of the Reconquista occurred in 1492.
And, not surprisingly, the late 14th century is the period I initially referenced when I wrote in #125 that "Khaldu[n] was writing as Christian Spaniards were engaged in a bloody Reconquista that they felt was a completely Just War by Augustinian standards."
I'm sorry you have such trouble understanding simple history and grammar.
Actually, you didn't say that in #145. I guess I shouldn't ever take you at your word. it was #148.
And now that we've put to rest the issue of that particular exchange's historical periodization, what exactly is so "dishonest" about saying that we can reasonably assume 20 generations over six centuries? Or that the Moors had been in Iberia for six centuries at the time Khaldun was writing? Or that the Reconquista was not yet complete? Do you question the veracity of any of these?
If so, I'll ask you these:
How many human generations do you expect over 600 years? I believe the convention is that a "generation" is roughly equivalent to 30 years, if not less.
How long had the Moors been in Iberia in the late 14th century?
When did the Reconquista end, if it was over by the 14th century?