This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Explanation: In the most general terms, as a rule of thumb, you might say that 'supply / supplier' can be sued where some kind of physical merchandize is unvolved — in your list: sand bricks equipment lumber [NB: 'lumber' is uncountable in EN!] ...and I would add gas / electricity / water.
With non-physical things or abstract ideas, then 'provide / provider' is usually more common: help services etc.
HOWEVER, in everyday language (i.e. not specifically business) you may find 'provide' used, where there is no kind of commercial transaction involved:
"A parent's first job is to provide food, clothing, and shelter for their children" — 'supply' would be out of palce here!
As you can see, there's a great deal of native-speaker 'feeling' involved here!
Ah yes, but "procurement" is the other side of it. "Purveyor" is a slightly neglected word, but purveyors purvey stuff like fine cheese and wine, rather than sand and bricks. I must go now and nibble some of the asparagus I procured from my purveyor. ;)
subtleties regarding provider vs. supplier, then you could also add to that list "procurement", "procurers", "procuress", "purveyor", "dealer" [and possibly few more I can't think off right now ...] / I'm getting the vibes that these terms feel neglected in this comparison ...
It's hard to understand why you think that "bias" might be a problem here. Perhaps you could provide an example of what you mean. You write that "a straightforward question about the subtleties of a language is usually answered in the David's or Brigittes' style." However, a question about the subtleties of a language isn't generally straightforward! I must admit to a bias against straight-forward resorters to business dictionary definitions, who dismiss native-speakers' understanding of the subtleties of language as the whitterings of "everlasting know-it-alls". If, however, that sort of straight-forward answer is what you wanted, then you are as capable as Brigitte is of googling a business dictionary.
Let's make peace. I don't want to argue or offend anyone.
I only wanted to explain that in my experience a straightforward question about the subtleties of a language is usually answered in the David's or Brigittes' style. It well may be that you and B D Finch are free from any bias, but let's be reasonable: there are a lot of other people here.
You wrote: "In this particular case, "it is very important to keep my cards as close to my chest" as possible to avoid potentially biased answers."
I'm sorry, but you are quite wrong there! Yopu are asking for help from other language professionals, whose very job involves 'avoiding bias'; on the contrary, treating us like children is condescending in the extreme. You need to tell us what your own thoughts are, so that we can build on those — 'bias' does not enter into it. If someone fails to reveal their own thoughts and suggestions, that rather tends to give the impression that either they don't have any, or are afraid to reveal them in case it might show them in a bad light.
"I hope you realize just how negatively that comes" - don't hope. As you understand, I am not a native English speaker, so I wanted to know the opinion of natives who have a feeling for their native language. My own opinion (if I express it) would affect the entire discussion. As to the spirit of the rules, I cannot see anything wrong about my question.
In this particular case, "it is very important to keep my cards as close to my chest" as possible to avoid potentially biased answers.
I can but echo what BDF has already said — dictionaries can't always give enough detail to exlain the subtleties of native-speaker 'feel'; in addition, in this particular instance, there is perhaps a greater-than-usual divergence between usage in business EN and everyday language; 'supplier' is not a word that would be crop up nearly as often in everyday language as it does in business, and 'provider' tends to have more social / moral overtones in everyday EN that are absent in commercial EN.
This is a good example of where simply looking in a business dictionary just won't do. A feeling for the language is needed here, e.g. I can't imagine a native speaker of English writing "help provider". Both 'help provider' and 'help supplier' are wrong to my ear. I'd say "provider of help", not "help provider". On the other hand, a "domestic help supplier" would be an agency supplying staff to carry out household tasks like cleaning.
You wrote: "I have my own ideas about the difference between these two words, but..."
I hope you realize just how negatively that comes across to people potentially prepared to help you out? It is also contary to the spirit of the KudoZ rules, where we have been encouraged to explain what solutions we have considered and (possibly) rejected. It is very important not to try and "keep your cards close to your chest", but to help others to help you by explaining what your own ideas are... which also usually shed light on "where the person is coming from" and what they have or have not understood... which in turn makes it easier to provide more pertinent help.
Explanation: In the most general terms, as a rule of thumb, you might say that 'supply / supplier' can be sued where some kind of physical merchandize is unvolved — in your list: sand bricks equipment lumber [NB: 'lumber' is uncountable in EN!] ...and I would add gas / electricity / water.
With non-physical things or abstract ideas, then 'provide / provider' is usually more common: help services etc.
HOWEVER, in everyday language (i.e. not specifically business) you may find 'provide' used, where there is no kind of commercial transaction involved:
"A parent's first job is to provide food, clothing, and shelter for their children" — 'supply' would be out of palce here!
As you can see, there's a great deal of native-speaker 'feeling' involved here!
Tony M France Local time: 12:07 Meets criteria Works in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 309
peer agreement (net): +5