The english part was an unabbreviated translation of the norwegian version.
When i started the project, i figured the norwegian version would need more space. It turned out the opposite was true.

This is generally true. The source language is the most compact, as it is using native words for native ideas.

There is a table of lengths for translations from English here. (Note that the Asian languages at the bottom seem very compact, but in fact they are longer on the page.)

I'm sure glad they included Klingon in that list -- I can't tell you how many clients I get wanting a length comparison for it. ;-)

(Neat page, Tom, and one I've bookmarked for future use.)

ROFL!

Interesting about the Irish - always knew there was a lot of blarney there.

Maxim Zhukov produced some years ago two editions of a book dealing with multilingual typography. I have found them helpful. There is comparative data about relative lengths of languages as well as commentary about special considerations for each language under consideration. I do not know if Norwegian is included [the book's at home; I'm at work].

The book is "Typography: Polyglot" (1991, Cooper Union), written with George Sadek. The second edition is "Typographia Polyglotta" (1997, ATypI / Cooper Union). It may be tough to find this many years on.

powers

Zhukov & Sadek's book is indeed extemely useful. But you also need to
account for the direction of translation, which typically adds ~15%.

hhp