I never assume anything quickly. (Although it did not take long to conclude that you're an idiot.)
It's childish to immediately resort to name calling, especially when such a light suggestion was made. At this point, I can just as easily say that you are incapable of not being mellodramatic, and that you are probably prone to using the ad hominem fallacy. But it wouldn't be the result of very much reconnaissance, would it?
The Terminology is an in-universe text. Narrative text trumps it every time. Even a statement by a character trumps it unless some reason can be shown to believe that the character is lying or joking, etc.
This hasn't been established, in a dialectic correspondence with me. Should this fact be so clear as you say it is, then I would like to see the relevant discussion.
Whether you can know the "margin of error" or not is irrelevant. The fact that in-universe texts can be in error is what matters.
I would defer to a person relative to the account with qualities like Thufir Hawat in the stead of in-universe texts, but considering the advancements of that day and age, it doesn't make sense to regard the in-universe texts like we might regard comparisons between Suetonius and Tacitus of the ancient Roman empire.
And who the fuck are you to tell us what Frank Herbert intended?
Dude, Frank Herbert gave us some good ideas as to what he intended:
http://sinanvural.com/seksek/inien/tvd/tvd2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So, I can also safely argue that Frank Herbert was more interested in ecology and anthropology, than hard history.
The sentence below this is false.
The sentence above this is true.