"I wouldn't have bought any cheese" is expressed as a deduction (as in the discussion you follow up with) "it's not likely I bought cheese", or "I'm not the sort of person to have bought cheese there".
The pragmatic implication in this sense is either "I don't remember for sure whether I ever bought cheese, but I can't believe I did", or possibly "You must see that I'm not the sort of person to buy cheese there".
I will address the substitution of seen for saw. I see no problem with the uses of away.
This is a feature of a non-standard American English spoken by many native speakers of a low socioeconomic group and by Southerners. I know this from personal experience, but found the following sources to support my assertion.
One socially marked feature is the use of nonstandard past tense and
past participial verb forms, especially on irregular verbs. For
example, the verb to see in standard English has the past tense saw
and the past participle seen: I saw him yesterday; I’ve seen him three
times this week.
Nonstandard dialects may regularize these forms by
using one of several strategies. One is to form the past tense by
using the regular inflection, spelled -ed, yielding a sentence like I
seed him yesterday. Another is to use one form for both the past and
past participle forms, yielding sentences like I seen him yesterday
or I’ve saw him three times this week.
Excepted from Linguistics for Non-Linguists, by Frank Parker Kathryn Riley
Wikipedia says this is also said to be a feature of Southern American English.
Use of done (instead of did) as the past simple form of do, and
similar uses of the past participle in place of the past simple, such
as seen replacing saw as past simple form of see. I only done what you
done told me. I seen her first.
Another Wikipedia article identifies this as a feature of Appalachian English, a subset of the low socioeconomic class.
Finally, John G. Fought's thoughts on this phenomenon.
The great American linguist Leonard Bloomfield observed many years ago
that the child who learns to say I seen it has learned just as much as
the one who says I saw it. Both of these forms are irregular. The
least common American past-tense form of see is the regularized form I
seed it. These so-called mistakes shed more light on language than
“standard” forms, because what’s going on is clearly not ignorance,
laziness or poor schooling. The pattern of present, past and perfect
of see, seen and seen in place of see, saw and seen reveals that
speakers don’t put irregular verbs together just by combining a stem
and a suffix, the way they form many thousands of English regular
verbs. Among the roughly 180 ‘approved’ irregular verbs now listed in
grammars of American English, there is no verb with an -en suffix in
the past as well as the perfect form.
So where does I seen it come from? It follows a more general pattern
implicit in all the regular verbs and in many irregular ones as well.
All of the regular verbs, such as need, needed,, and about 75 of the
irregular ones, such as lead, led, led, have the same form in the past
and present perfect, but a different form in the present. The see,
seen, seen formation fits this more inclusive pattern, which can be
stated as present differs from past and perfect; the past is like the
perfect minus 'have.'
Best Answer
From Dictionary.com, and excellent online dictionary that draws from several good traditional sources:
analyzer:A person, machine, or device that analyzes.analyst:A person who analyzes or who is skilled in analysis.The definition of
analyststresses two points: A person, and skilled.That's why you find
analystin job descriptions - it denotes a person with a specific skillset: Good, trained, skilled at analysis. You can analyze, but not be good at it - that will certainly make you ananalyzer, but not necessarily ananalyst.Another way to think of it perhaps, is that an
analystachieves results and conclusions from their actions as ananalyzer: Ananalystdoes not just engage in the act of analyzing (that's ananalyzer) , but produces ananalysis- a result.