Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Czechlist] CONT.: poptavka vs. nabidka - nabizejici

Expand Messages
  • Jan Culka
    AFAIK, Proposal, Quotation and even Offer are quite equivalent and thus also used. Bidder is quite kosher, Offerer cannot be seen anywhere, although maybe
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      AFAIK, Proposal, Quotation and even Offer are quite equivalent and thus also
      used.
      Bidder is quite kosher, Offerer cannot be seen anywhere, although maybe
      correct.
      Honza


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "kzgafas" <kzgafas@...>
      To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 6:16 AM
      Subject: [Czechlist] CONT.: poptavka vs. nabidka - nabizejici


      > Thank you for this. Request and Quote sound really great for my use.
      > And what about - nabizejici - the party (potential supplier)
      > preparing the Quote? I have tried to use Offerer - but I think there
      > should be something better. Or Bidder - this sounds slangish for my
      > use. Or maybe it is OK(?). Any suggestions for nabizejici?
      >
      > Thank you,
      >
      > K.
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In Czechlist@yahoogroups.com, "Pecinkova - prekladatelsky
      > servis" <preklady@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > An American company I work for quite often uses "RFP" = request
      > for quote
      > > (poptavka) vs. quote (nabidka). And they have heaps of official
      > forms to
      > > support it.
      > > Iveta
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "kzgafas" <kzgafas@...>
      > > To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:23 PM
      > > Subject: [Czechlist] TERMS: poptavka vs. nabidka
      > >
      > >
      > > > Context:
      > > > A large telecom company needs to choose among more suppliers of
      > > > speficic devices. So they issue poptavka (poptavkovy dokument) to
      > > > these suppliers to make their nabidka to the telecom company so
      > that
      > > > the company can choose the best offer (price vs. quality). How
      > would
      > > > you render poptavka and nabidka in this context? Quite frankly,
      > I have
      > > > never felt really comfortable in rendering this pair (nabidka vs.
      > > > poptavka) in English. May I use "bid" for nabidka? Isnt it too
      > > > slangish? I am looking for something that would fit into a
      > formal and
      > > > carefully prepared (official) poptavkovy dokument.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Thank you,
      > > >
      > > > K.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Useful resource of the week:
      > > > http://tinyurl.com
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Useful resource of the week:
      > http://tinyurl.com
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Michael
      ... I don t see much. In the U.S., I d tend to limit the quote form, which is almost never heard, as being for something pretty cut-and- dried, standard,
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Czechlist@yahoogroups.com, "Iveta Pecinkova - preklady a
        tlumoceni" <preklady@...> wrote:
        > I wonder whether native speakers see any difference
        > between RFQ and RFP in this context.

        I don't see much. In the U.S., I'd tend to limit the "quote" form,
        which is almost never heard, as being for something pretty cut-and-
        dried, standard, off-the-shelf, and "proposal" (which is what I've
        almost always heard in a variety of contexts) as being for something
        that might involve alternatives, design or project choices, etc. But
        for any practical purpose, they'd be synonyms.

        It may be a regional variation. Google shows the following
        difference between the U.S. and the U.K.: when sites are made
        predominantly U.S. by using the site restriction site:.edu, site:.gov
        or site:.us, the proportion very very greatly favors RFP over RFQ
        (i.e., "request for proposal" over "request for quote" both spelled
        out in full and limited to precise string by quotation marks): by
        149,000 to 700 in .edu, 227,000 to 900 in .gov, and 273,000 to 900
        for .us -- but using a site restrictor of site:.uk produces a
        disproportion markedly (though less extremely lopsided) the other
        way: 160k for the RFQ and 24k for RFP (both spelled out in full, of
        course). So the US has about a 180:1 favor for RFP; the UK about a
        8:1 favor for RFQ.
      • Pecinkova - prekladatelsky servis
        Thanks, Michael ... From: Michael To: Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 6:06 PM Subject: [Czechlist] Re:
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks, Michael

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Michael" <tritt002@...>
          To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 6:06 PM
          Subject: [Czechlist] Re: TERMS: poptavka vs. nabidka


          > --- In Czechlist@yahoogroups.com, "Iveta Pecinkova - preklady a
          > tlumoceni" <preklady@...> wrote:
          >> I wonder whether native speakers see any difference
          >> between RFQ and RFP in this context.
          >
          > I don't see much. In the U.S., I'd tend to limit the "quote" form,
          > which is almost never heard, as being for something pretty cut-and-
          > dried, standard, off-the-shelf, and "proposal" (which is what I've
          > almost always heard in a variety of contexts) as being for something
          > that might involve alternatives, design or project choices, etc. But
          > for any practical purpose, they'd be synonyms.
          >
          > It may be a regional variation. Google shows the following
          > difference between the U.S. and the U.K.: when sites are made
          > predominantly U.S. by using the site restriction site:.edu, site:.gov
          > or site:.us, the proportion very very greatly favors RFP over RFQ
          > (i.e., "request for proposal" over "request for quote" both spelled
          > out in full and limited to precise string by quotation marks): by
          > 149,000 to 700 in .edu, 227,000 to 900 in .gov, and 273,000 to 900
          > for .us -- but using a site restrictor of site:.uk produces a
          > disproportion markedly (though less extremely lopsided) the other
          > way: 160k for the RFQ and 24k for RFP (both spelled out in full, of
          > course). So the US has about a 180:1 favor for RFP; the UK about a
          > 8:1 favor for RFQ.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Useful resource of the week:
          > http://tinyurl.com
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.