I have to admit, my first thought on seeing it was "oh not, not again".
The underlying problem is that we all pretend that a Gloranthan year is the same length as a RW year. We have to, otherwise you're forever thinking "right, he was born in X and it's now Y, so he's 35 Gloranthan years old - how old's that really? divide by that, multiply by the other.."
AND, we also assume that a Gloranthan day, hour, and so on are the same length as RW ones. Again, we have to.
As long as we're only dealing in short times (days, hours) or long ones (10 years), we can keep up the pretence. When we get to things of, say, 9 months duration, the clash becomes apparent. And, sadly, there is no obvious good solution.
For pregnancy, it seems rather neat to have it exactly one Gloranthan year in length. It's easy to work out conception to date of birth. But that's an argument based purely on tidiness.
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Powered by hypermail