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

Re: TERMS: poptavka vs. nabidka

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.