It's kind of a shame that future Alexander was thwarted in his attempt to kill his past self, doncha think?

Let me recall the plot...Alexander comes back in time to convince himself to become a warrior, because if he doesn't he'll become a DIPLOMAT (spoken with some degree of contempt), and not be able to save Worf's life when he is attacked. Well, on DS9 it looks like Alex has chosen the warrior's path, even if he's not very good at it. Did this career choice come in consequence of his future self's influence upon him? Worf said that the time line would change now that he knows about it, but what indication is there of this? Maybe Worf's life will be in danger one day in the same way future Alexander describes (on the floor of the Klingon High Council chamber, at that; say! he is an ambassador now!) This time however, instead of being a diplomat, Alexander will be a Klingon warrior, and in attempting to save his father, will fail miserably due to lack of combat skill, and they'll both be killed. Way to go, future Alexander!

I hadn't seen this one in a long time, Worf practicing his speech to Alexander and then messing it up when he gives it was hilarious.

I wonder why Alexander didn't try to save his mother.

The ring thing was okay, but kissing it and calling him "Godfather" was a bit much
When the older Alexander first greets Worf, he does so by showing him his ring. Without giving his name, Worf recognizes him from his ring as K’Mtar. Since we know he really isn’t K’Mtar, and Worf knows K’Mtar’s name and ring crest, this means Worf never met the real K’Mtar, and doesn’t know what he looks like. Can’t any idiot find out what K’Mtar’s ring looks like and replicate one? Shouldn’t Worf have checked this guy’s story out with Kurn?
He’s out getting his head buffed
Is there some reason why Picard is so absent during this episode? After K’Mtar’s staged attack on Worf and Alexander, He, Worf and Riker meet in the observation lounge to discuss the matter. Shouldn’t Picard be present? Then, when investigating the whereabouts of the Duras sisters, and after speaking with them in the observation lounge in Act 4, Picard is also absent.
Don’t you just hate it when a parent forces an overachieving kid to get into entertainment, to get straight-A’s, to be the best at sports, or to partake in a Klingon blood ritual involving painsticks?
Worf and "K’Mtar" both mention that Alexander is nearing the Age of Ascension. Worf tells Alexander that he will never be a true Klingon warrior if he does not complete the ritual by the age of thirteen. First of all, Alex is nowhere NEAR thirteen. He was born on stardate 43205, or March 16th, 2366, as established in New Ground. The stardate for this episode is 47779.4, or mid-October 12th, 2370. He is four and a half.
Worf must’ve taken some late make-up exam
Second, I guess Worf isn’t a true Klingon warrior. He wasn’t thirteen. He was fifteen, as established in the episode The Icarus Factor.
Hey, lots of people had hobbies as kids that didn’t last into adulthood. Some collected stamps. Some learned martial arts. Some liked to draw. Alexander liked to kill people.
K’Mtar and Worf try to encourage Alexanders’ interest in Klingon culture, and after Alexander knocks a holodeck opponent to the ground, K’Mtar urges Alexander to kill him. When Alexander refuses, Worf and K’Mtar are disappointed. Worf certainly has flipflopped on the issue of killing an opponent. He had the opportunity to kill the Frank Hollander character in front of Alexander at the end of A Fistful of Datas, and without the repurcussions that would’ve followed had Hollander been real, but he instead let him go and told him never to show his face in Deadwood again. And Alexander has apparently gotten gun shy since New Ground. In that episode, he fought with a holodeck character, and had no compunction about killing him.

Do we know how long Klingon years are? This may also be the anti-nit for Alexander's rapid growth. Klingon years may be much shorter, and therefore, Klingons mature faster than humans.

It doesn't matter. Whenever we hear a character referring to a timespan, the universal translator translates it into Earth units (with the exception of aliens' birthdays).

The breeding cycles of many animals are linked to the seasons, so if a planet's years are short then the animals might naturally mature faster (so as to be independent by the next breeding cycle, for example.)
Whether that argument could be applied to an animal as sophisticated as a Klingon is highly questionable, though.

(Please forgive me, I'm very new at this.) I hope I have found the right place for this particular nit, as I haven't seen the episode in a while, but it has always been my favorite one on my favorite subject: the universal translator. At the beginning of this episode, part of the crew are standing around watching a traditional Klingon ritual/play. In the middle of the ceremony, Beverly leans over and says "What's he saying?" WHAT'S HE SAYING? The crew has their uniforms (and badges) on. The ship is in orbit. I can think of no possible explanation as to why if she wanted to know what was being said she simply wouldn't LISTEN!

There's no explanation HOW the future "Alexander" got to Worf's time. I felt gypped.

Ask the future Janeway...

Wow, could it be a shade of continuity in VOY?

I must add there's yet ANOTHER promo for DS9 in this episode with the appearance of Quark.

HOW can the future Alexander be in the same timeline as the younger Alexander? I thought it was impossible for two people who are the same person but from two different timelines to be in the same timeline at one time.

If it is possible, then perhaps this concept explains the whole Tasha Yar thing....
She DID exist as a child AND as an adult in the Enterprise-C timeline. Is that what they are saying in "Yesterday's Enterprise"?

Yep. Though not the Ent-C timeline, but the "modified" timeline after the Ent-C went back.

I thought it was impossible for two people who are the same person but from two different timelines to be in the same timeline at one time.

Where did you get that idea? See Relativity(VOY), and possibly Visionary(DS9) (the one where O'Brien is jumping around in time.

See also Time's Arrow(TNG). Data is in the same timeline as his (soon-to-be-disconnected in our past but his personal future) head.

HOW can the future Alexander be in the same timeline as the younger Alexander? I thought it was impossible for two people who are the same person but from two different timelines to be in the same timeline at one time.

No you're thinking of timecop "same matter can't be in the same place at the same time". In most time traval theorys it would be possible to go back in time and see yourself as a child.

I thought it was impossible for two people who are the same person but from two different timelines to be in the same timeline at one time.

As far the whole Tasha thing didn't we go through that one on the Yesterday's Enterprise board?

Yeah, but both episodes deal with time, I just thought I'd ask again. I didn't quite get it. But now with ScottN's help. I got it.

Phil commented on it in the Classic Guide about the episode Tomorrow Is Yesterday. As the Enterprise goes back, then forward in time the Enterprise in low Earth orbit disappears, then Christopher & the security guard are beamed into their earlier selves. However with the possible exception of The Naked Now this idea of different versions of an object or person disappearing when another version shows up was never used again in Star Trek.

You mean The Naked Time(TOS), not The Naked Now(TNG). There was no time travel in The Naked Now.

Whoops! Yep. I got my naked episodes confused. (Don't you just hate it when that happens?)

Worf tells Alexander that it's approaching the time for him to declare himself a warrior and that if he does not declare it before the age of 13 he can never be a warrior. I thought fighting was what made someone a warrior, not declaring themselves one by a certain age. So if a Klingon never declared himself to be a warrior, then goes into battle killing hundreds of enemy fighters, the only thing they can call themselves is 'lucky'?

Picard says that, "Stellar Dynamics would like nothing better than a trip around the nebula." I don't remember hearing about this department before, are they connected to Stellar Cartography?

When Alexander goes to fight he really throws the pretend Mollar for a loop. In English 'Mollar' says. "What is this!" Then after being knocked down he says, "You have wounded me!'' Usually when a person is surprised they speak in the language they were raised in. So was that Klingon raised to speak English or was he told that Alexander spoke English and was told to make the kid feel good by pretending to be hurt?

A Gentor is an advisor so trusted that he is considered a member of the family. So do Gentors suffer the same disgrace that several generations of a family would suffer if someone betrayed the Empire?

When K'Mtar realizes that the only way to change things is to kill young Alexander, why doesn't Troi sense anything? She is in the room when he realizes that he can't keep blaming the Duras sisters.

The knife is of the House of Duras, but there is no marking for Duras, however there is one for his father, Ja'rod. So why was it called the House of Duras instead of the House of Ja'rod.

Perhaps Ja'rod named the House after his son, to make sure his son would get ahead. He even flirted with the idea of giving Duras the middle initial "W."

OK...The future Alexander presents the evidence of the assasination attempt...a knife from the house of Duras. It has the symbols of the indiviuals representing the house of Duras...including Lursa's son...who at this time is unborn.

THE KNIFE IS A FAKE!

Lursa DID NOT have a son...she died in "Generations".

Sigh.

1. Generations took place months after this episode.

2. She said she was pregnant in this episode. She must have had the baby by Generations and either gave him to someone else or had someone watch him while she was off with Soran.

First of all, John, Worf and K’Ehlyr conceived Alexander Rozhenko in The Emissary, which was on stardate 42901.3, and Alexander said in New Ground that he was born on stardate 43205. Stardate 42901.3 falls on November 26, 2365, and stardate 43205 falls on March 16, 2366. That means K’Ehlyr’s pregnancy lasted just under fourth Earth months. Since Alexander is one quarter human, and Klingons grow faster than humans, the gestation period for full Klingons may even be shorter.

Although Doc said in Lineage(VOY) that the Klingon gestation period is 30 weeks, or seven and a half months, I would consider that a nit, and apocryphal, not only because it contradicts the first figure given, but because I’m guessing they inserted that line because they wanted little Miral to be born in the series finale. But let’s just put that aside for the sake of generosity.

Firstborn’s stardate was 47779.4, or October 12, 2370. The first stardate given for the 24th century part of Star Trek Generations was 48632.4, or August 19th, 2371. That’s TEN MONTHS, John. Well over long enough not only for that first figure given, but even that wildly contradictory second one.

Second, John, that knife came from a future timeline, and you’re forgetting that future timelines glimpsed from a past time period POV are possible timelines, not certain ones, a point that’s been made on these boards before, most recently regarding the future seen in All Good Things…

John A. Lang: I thought it was impossible for two people who are the same person but from two different timelines to be in the same timeline at one time.

ScottN: Where did you get that idea? See Relativity(VOY), and Visionary(DS9). See also Time's Arrow(TNG).
Luigi Novi: Plus We’ll Always Have Paris, Time Squared, Yesterday’s Enterprise (which you mentioned, Brian), possibly Deadlock(VOY), and Endgame(VOY).

Brian Fitzgerald: No you're thinking of timecop "same matter can't be in the same place at the same time".
Luigi Novi: And perhaps a smidge of Back to the Future’s "see yourself and faint from the shock" principle.

Luigi, how are you arriving at such precise figures for Stardates?

I don't recall there ever being a stardate to Julian calendar date correlation made in Trek. As far as I know, the only correlation ever made was that the second figure (in TNG-era) corresponded to the season TNG was in (so the difference between 41345 and 42345 is approximately a year). But I don't recall anything more precise than that... certainly nothing to pinpoint stardates to a specific date on the Julian calendar.

Maybe I'm wrong. But if I'm not, then it's your figures that are apocryphal, and estimations about Klingon gestation periods are more precise.

Even if Alexander were born four months after being conceived, that doesn't make the Doctor's figure incorrect... like K'Ehlyr, B'Elanna was half-human, which could change the gestation period depending on whether the child is more human or more Klingon (not to mention the condition of the hybrid mother).

Darth Sarcasm: Luigi, how are you arriving at such precise figures for Stardates?
Luigi Novi: The first two numbers of the TNG-era stardate are a whole number that clearly correspond to an Earth year. Despite the occasional nit regarding stardates, this figure is generally consistent when you look at all the references made at how much time has passed since an event in a prior episode, and when you look at the fact that episodes in the beginning of the season always begins with the lowest number, and those at the end the largest. This means that the next three numbers are thousandths of a year. Therefore, 2.739 stardate units is a full Earth day (2.732 during a leap year). This is a logical conclusion based on observation of the stardates, and one that Phil uses in his Guides as well.

Darth Sarcasm: I don't recall there ever being a stardate to Julian calendar date correlation made in Trek.
Luigi Novi: I thought we were using the Gregorian calendar?

Darth Sarcasm: As far as I know, the only correlation ever made was that the second figure (in TNG-era) corresponded to the season TNG was in (so the difference between 41345 and 42345 is approximately a year). But I don't recall anything more precise than that...
Luigi Novi: The first two numbers are a whole number, because after DS9’s fourth and Voyager’s second seasons (whose stardates began with 4-9), the first two numbers of the stardates of DS9’s fifth and Voyager’s third continued with 5-0.

Darth Sarcasm: Even if Alexander were born four months after being conceived, that doesn't make the Doctor's figure incorrect... like K'Ehlyr, B'Elanna was half-human, which could change the gestation period depending on whether the child is more human or more Klingon.
Luigi Novi: Both Alexander and Miral are one-quarter Klingon, and three quarters human. And, as I said, even if we accepted Doc’s new figure of "30 weeks," it still would be enough time for B’Etor’s kid to be hatched.

Luigi Novi: Both Alexander and Miral are one-quarter Klingon, and three quarters human.

Except Alexander is three quarters Klingon and one quarter human.

The first two numbers of the TNG-era stardate are a whole number that clearly correspond to an Earth year. Despite the occasional nit regarding stardates, this figure is generally consistent when you look at all the references made at how much time has passed since an event in a prior episode... - Luigi

"Clearly?" If anything, all this shows is that it approximates an Earth year. That doesn't make it a fact, just speculation.


This means that the next three numbers are thousandths of a year. - Luigi

How so? It can mean that... but what if the numbers that follow are a different unit of measurement altogether? For instance... one could refer to today's date as 030203. The first two digits are a whole number indicating the year. But that doesn't meant the proceeding numbers are decimal positions in relation to the whole number 03.


This is a logical conclusion based on observation of the stardates, - Luigi

While it's logical, I don't think it's enough to base a conclusion.


I thought we were using the Gregorian calendar? - Luigi

Basically the same thing, as the "Gregorian" calendar is simply an updated version of the Julian calendar. The main difference is that it takes a while longer for it to skew over a day.


And, as I said, even if we accepted Doc’s new figure of "30 weeks," it still would be enough time for B’Etor’s kid to be hatched. - Luigi

No. Alexander is three-quarters Klingon.

JoshG: Except Alexander is three quarters Klingon and one quarter human.

Darth Sarcasm: No. Alexander is three-quarters Klingon.
Luigi Novi: Arrggh! Yeah, that’s what I meant. Thanks for the correction.

Darth Sarcasm: "Clearly?" If anything, all this shows is that it approximates an Earth year. That doesn't make it a fact, just speculation. While it's logical, I don't think it's enough to base a conclusion.
Luigi Novi: To each his own. As far as I’m concerned, it’s fairly obvious that one Trek season, and the first two digits of the TNG-era stardates equal one year.

Darth Sarcasm: How so? It can mean that... but what if the numbers that follow are a different unit of measurement altogether? For instance... one could refer to today's date as 030203. The first two digits are a whole number indicating the year. But that doesn't meant the proceeding numbers are decimal positions in relation to the whole number 03.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say they did. But they do indicate such a relationship with stardates. The rightmost digits in a stardate move the most frequently, the each digit to the left moving less frequently. With a Gregorian/Julian date arranged as you suggest (and I’m guessing here that the first two digits are the month and the last two are the year, right?), the fourth one from the left will move the most frequently, then the third one from the left, then the second, the first, then the sixth, and then the fifth. This doesn’t occur with stardates.

I wasn't quite expecting such details explanations.

But...If the future Alexander killed the present Alexander, what would happen to the future Alexander that was still in the present timeline? Would he just vanish?

Sorry..."DETAILED"

\adam-sandler{Alexander part Klingon, Miral is too... Put them both together... what an honorable duo!}

As far as I’m concerned, it’s fairly obvious that one Trek season, and the first two digits of the TNG-era stardates equal one year. - Luigi

This has never been explicitly stated. Therefore, this is conjecture and supposition. The only thing that's obvious is that it approximates a year.


and I’m guessing here that the first two digits are the month and the last two are the year, right?), - Luigi

Actually, no...

I meant to suggest that the first two digits were the year, the next two were the month, and the final two the day... my bad (plus, it didn't help that the day and the year had the same number yesterday). So today's date would look like: 030204. Such a system (which is frequently used in computer filing) also follows the pattern you indicate (where the numbers on the right move more frequently than the ones on the left).

Regardless, you're only illustrating how the numbers change in relation to each other. In order for you to determine a specific date on the Julian/Gregorian calendar, you would have to know how frequently the numbers change. And we don't know this. That the numbers following the first two digits signify thousandths, hundredths, or tenths is only supposition.

Furthermore, your conclusion doesn't work when you take TOS into account. Now, you can dismiss TOS figures as inaccurate or that they use a different unit of measurement... but isn't it equally likely that the figures are correct and the way they measure stardates in the future has nothing to do with the Earth calendar? Since faster-than-light travel involves time differentials and whatnot... is it possible that stardates change more quickly or more slowly (much like we have shorter and longer months) to account for this? And it's only coincidence that in the 24th Century the first two digits happen to approximate the length of an Earth year?

There simply aren't enough facts for a conclusion.

I never said this system worked with TOS. I made it clear I was talking about the TNG era, because the creators made a greater effort to correlate those first two digits to one year. As for why it is this way in the 24th century, it would seem that in 2323, 41 years prior to NextGen's first season, the interstellar community decided to start over again, as Mike Okuda indicates for that year in The Star Trek Chronology. (It is also here that he states that it is assumed that stardates progress at 1000 units per year. This means that 2.739 stardate units progress per day, or 2.732 per day in a leap year.)

Perhaps there was some watershed event at that point that made it seem appropriate. Maybe a bunch of different Alpha Quadrant powers got together (The Federation, the Klingons, the Breen, Cardassians, Tholians, Tzenkethi, the Nyberrite Alliance) and decided to reestablish the stardate system.

Because of these observations, and Mr. Okuda's indications, this is enough, in my opinion, to etablish a conclusion that the creators intend 1000 sdu to equal one Earth year, and we can infer from that that 2.739 sdu equal one Earth day.

I never claimed that you said that. I merely pointed out that it didn't work with TOS. I agree that your speculation is possible. But it's still speculation... and speculation not based on the episodes themselves but on sources outside the shows. While the Chronology and some of the Technical Guides are considered canon for the most part, they also state that if and when there is a discrepency between their speculations and the shows themselves, that the shows take precedent, they being the original source material.

In other words, if the Chronology states they "assume" 1000 units per one Earth year, but evidence from the shows indicates otherwise... then the assumption is considered inaccurate, not the show. As you've demonstrated, there is sufficient evidence that the 1000 units per Earth year assumption doesn't fit with the actual facts stated in the episodes. Thus, the assumption is inaccurate.

I never demonstrated any such thing. I demonstrated quite the opposite, that 1000 sdu do equal one Earth year. If you're referring to the discrepancies I mentioned, those are just nits.

No, you didn't show that. You showed that the Chronology states that. But the Chronology admits that it's just an assumption, and that if material from the shows disputes any assumptions in the Chronology, then the show wins out.

The shows have never stated 1000 stardates units equals one Earth year. The Chronology states that.

If you count a discrepency between the Chronology and an aired episode as a nit, so be it. But that's not what the authors of the Chronology state.

Darth Sarcasm: You showed that the Chronology states that. But the Chronology admits that it's just an assumption…
Luigi Novi: Yes, but this isn’t an assumption that one party is making about someone else, or about the guidelines or rules of an organization that they themselves aren’t a part of, but an assumption the creators themselves who created and use those stardates use when writing them.

When the Chronology speculates as to information that may yet be revealed in an episode or movie (as the first edition did when it gave 2061 as the date of the Phoenix’s first warp flight), that speculation is tentative, and if and when such an ep or movie gives a different figure, that different figure does become the canonical figure that supplants the conjecture, but here, we’re not talking about that type of situation. Mike Okuda is here stating the background guideline that the creators use regarding stardates, a point that they themselves created, and one that is not likely to be contradicted in an upcoming ep or movie. For one thing, there’s no longer a TNG-era series on TV, and whether there’ll be another TNG-era movie is uncertain. For another, it is unlikely that the writer of such a story would bog down dialogue with such esoteric minutia, and most importantly, what motive would a writer have for contradicting such a notion when that’s the guideline they’ve been using for the past 15 years? If the creators tell us that 1000 stardate units equal one year, what reason is there to dispute it? Just because they phrase it with the word "assumption," instead of "rule"? In the context stated in the The Chronology, the word assumption doesn’t necessarily mean "speculation" or "guess," but appears to me to mean "a premise or notion that is being used as a guideline for calculation." With all these indications that 1000 sdu equal an Earth year, is it really necessary to demand that a character explicitly state it is the case in an actual episode or movie?

Darth Sarcasm: If material from the shows disputes any assumptions in the Chronology, then the show wins out.
Luigi Novi: And what in the shows disputes that statement in the Chronology?

And what in the shows disputes that statement in the Chronology? - Luigi

Everything that you are calling nits regarding the dates.

In order for something to qualify as a nit, there has to be a contradiction to an established fact.

You refer to stardate discrepencies as nits because they don't follow the logistics as set forth in the Chronology. I argue that they cannot be nits because if ever there is a discrepency between the shows or films and another "canon" source (Chronology, Technical Guide), then the show wins and the other sources are simply incomplete or inaccurate...

I didn't make these rules up, TPTB did.

They cannot be nits because if ever there is a discrepency between the shows or films and another "canon" source (Chronology, Technical Guide), then the show wins and the other sources are simply incomplete or inaccurate...
Luigi Novi: I disagree. If a creator is telling us the rule or guideline that they use when writing stardates, it can't be "inaccurate." It's their rules, and the equation between an Earth year and 1000 sdu is fairly consistent. That is reference point. If the writer or writers of an ep or movie fail to pay close enough attention to the date when they're writing it (and no, I don't expect them to do so; this is all just for fun ), that's where the mistake lies. If the creators have their own system for how a stardate works, I don't see how that can be the mistake. Which has more consistent clues and more weight overall? The idea that 1000sdu equal one Earth year? Or the notion that that which I call nits are correct and the stated guideline that the creators themselves tell us is incorrect? We know that nits do exist, so everything in an ep or movie isn't always correct, and the stardates do make more sense if that equation is used as the reference point than if it isn't.

But hey, that's just me. To each his own.

I thought it was a poorly put together episode considering how good they got as TNG went along. They justified dragging a Galaxy Class Ship and all it's passengers for Worf with studying the nebula, but then all the other side trips were completely unjustirfied.

Why would future Alexander use a daggar that uses a design from the future? If he can identify it as one from the house of Duras, he must know the significance of the markings and should use one from the time period he's going back to.

Someone mentioned earlier that it's difficult to believe that Worf would not confirm the identity of K'Mtar. I agree, it's stretching it for us to believe that Worf would not contact Kurn, even to discuss that was going on.

Lot's of little things about the plot bugged me, even the appearances of Quark, Lursa and B'Etor, didn't add much.

KAM: Picard says that, "Stellar Dynamics would like nothing better than a trip around the nebula." I don't remember hearing about this department before, are they connected to Stellar Cartography?

It's a big ship, over a thousand people at any given time. Given the few times we've heard anything about the science department (we've never even met the science officer, if there is one) and its various units, it's perfectly reasonable that we wouldn't have heard of every single department.

Also, cartography has to do with mapping. Stellar Cartography appears to get involved with mapping missions (as we've seen in several episodes in the past), whereas Stellar Dyamics seems like they'd be more interested in studying the process of how individual stars function.

Picard's science officer (that is, the bridge science officer) is Data.

Well, Data is the third officer and the operations manager, and while he has been described as a scientist, it's never been stated that he is the science officer. Nor, by the way, does the encyclopedia list him as such. (I'm home for Christmas, so I have access to my Encyclopedia again!)

Data is the Second Officer, not the Third. Worf is next in line of Command.

As for being the science officer, you may be right about him ever been explicitly referred to as the science officer (and you're correct about the Encyclopedia not listing him as such), but he certainly served that function at times as part of the bridge crew (particularly during senior staff meetings), and often multi-tasked, aiding in both science and engineering assignments at times in addition to running Ops.

D'oh, sorry, I meant to say second officer. I even told myself, as I wrote the post, not to write third officer, because that is such a common mistake. *slaps head*

If future Alexander was REALLY serious about doing away with himself, why didn't he just go back before he was born and prevent Worf & K'Ehleyr from mating?

Picard (Patrick Stewart) vanishes from the episode after Worf goes to the Klingon Festival.

What happened?

"Brian Fitzgerald: No you're thinking of timecop "same matter can't be in the same place at the same time".
Luigi Novi: And perhaps a smidge of Back to the Future’s "see yourself and faint from the shock" principle."

And the doctor Who Blinkovich Limitation Effect, I believe.

Regarding the argument about the length of stardate units, it is rather irrelevant for the nit about Lursa's son, as Alexander was conceived on stardate 42901.3 and born on stardate 43205, 304 stardate units apart, and this episode takes place on stardate 47779.4, and Generations takes place on stardate 48632.4, 853.0 stardate units apart. A considerably longer time and ample time to have a child. Even if you believe the stardates may not necessarily represent an actual base-10 number, whatever base you use, this will still represent a much longer time. What I find odd is that in all the subsequent treks, especially Deep Space 9, where we do occasionally hear things from the Duras house, we have never heard of this child again.

An Alexander episode on ds9 had him saying I have no house?, he volenteered to be on a some mission?

ds9's Sons and Daughters?