What is the meaning of this term "supernatural"?

But it does. By association. The addition of the suffix "ist" is the key: Of course I really don't expect you to understand that so here it is from the dictionary:
"-ist
suff.
1.
a. One that performs a specified action: lobbyist.
b. One that produces, makes, operates, plays, or is connected with a specified thing: novelist.
2. A specialist in a specified art, science, or skill: biologist.
3. An adherent or advocate of a specified doctrine, theory, or school of thought: anarchist.
4. One that is characterized by a specified trait or quality: romanticist."

Projection = the act of projecting.
+
ist = the one who does the act (in this case the act of projecting)

Resulting in "projectionist". Get some education.

 

A dictionary will list those words that can accept a suffix within the definition of the root word or as a separate definition. For example, go look up "lobby" and "lobbyist". You'll find them both.
Total fail, and a new bump to display your iignorance.

 

Here is an example of what I was talking about in regard to how dictionaries work.

Definition of MORON

1 :usually offensive: a person affected with mild mental retardation


2: a very stupid person

— mo·ron·ic adjective

— mo·ron·i·cal·ly adverb

— mo·ron·ism noun

— mo·ron·i·ty noun

You see how they list out the other forms of the word? These can also be looked up individually. Your medical term does not get extrapolated that way, because it is not an acceptable usage in the English language.

Notice you haven't denied the lie you told about me not having posted the definition before.

 

How quaint. I notice also that you do not make mention of the rule of grammar that allows the placement of the suffix "ist" after the end of certain words... such as changing "machine" to "machinist", or changing 'biology' to 'biologist'. Try to explain away that rule of grammar.

"-ist
suffix
1. (forming nouns) a person who performs a certain action or is concerned with something specified motorist soloist
2. (forming nouns) a person who practises in a specific field physicist typist
3. (forming nouns and adjectives) a person who advocates a particular doctrine, system, etc., or relating to such a person or the doctrine advocated socialist
4. (forming nouns and adjectives) a person characterized by a specified trait, tendency, etc., or relating to such a person or trait purist
5. (forming nouns and adjectives) a person who is prejudiced on the basis specified sexist ageist
[via Old French from Latin -ista, -istēs, from Greek -istēs]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003"

Or:

dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/45899/320526110.pdf?...

You don't know as much as you think you do.

 

How quaint. I notice also that you do not make mention of the rule of grammar that allows the placement of the suffix "ist" after the end of certain words... such as changing "machine" to "machinist", or changing 'biology' to 'biologist'. Try to explain away that rule of grammar.

"-ist
suffix
1. (forming nouns) a person who performs a certain action or is concerned with something specified motorist soloist
2. (forming nouns) a person who practises in a specific field physicist typist
3. (forming nouns and adjectives) a person who advocates a particular doctrine, system, etc., or relating to such a person or the doctrine advocated socialist
4. (forming nouns and adjectives) a person characterized by a specified trait, tendency, etc., or relating to such a person or trait purist
5. (forming nouns and adjectives) a person who is prejudiced on the basis specified sexist ageist
[via Old French from Latin -ista, -istēs, from Greek -istēs]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003"

Or:

dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/45899/320526110.pdf?...

You don't know as much as you think you do.

 

But you can show no evidence anywhere, in any dictionary, medical or otherwise, that shows using "projectionist" the way you did as acceptable in English. We have seen that word derivatives are mentioned in word definitions, and the medical definition doesn't provide it. Look up "projectionist" in a medical dictionary and it is tellingly absent. Look it up in a general language dictionary, and voila! There it is.
You can add "-ist" to the word "projection", but that won't make it mean what you choose it to. You can provide no refutation of this point anywhere, and haven't.
Keep bumping this. It's endlessly entertaining, though admittedly saddening on another level.

 

Then you can add ist to biology and that won't make it mean what you choose it to. I have shown that it is acceptable in the English language. It is written in English; it is defined as pointed out in the medical dictionary as a derivative of the word projection; is a word of art in the science of psychology; and that it follows the rules of grammar. Your denial, of the FACT that projectionist is an acceptable English word as I have used it, does NOT make it unacceptable.

A formal thesis has been placed before you concerning the use of the suffix "ist" as found at the end of the word "projectionist". Prove the thesis wrong or go home crying.

 

As I have already stated, putting "-ist" on the end of the word "projection" does create a word. It just has no definition that allows it to be used in the way you are using it. You have proved that repeatedly by posting your medical definition of "projection" that does not show it as a derivative in that context. I have given you ample opportunities to find a definition that would support your usage, but you have not been able to supply one. You never will.
If this usage has any credibility, you should easily find some source somewhere showing that definition and usage. I am not placing restrictions on the source, just asking that it be a verifiable one.
Very telling that you have never apologized for you lying about me never having posted the definition before. Why are you so afraid to be found wrong?

Here is the example using biology. Notice how the derivative word is specified.

bi·ol·o·gy (b-l-j)
n.
1. The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany and zoology and all their subdivisions.
2. The life processes or characteristic phenomena of a group or category of living organisms: the biology of viruses.
3. The plant and animal life of a specific area or region.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[German Biologie : Greek bio-, bio- + Greek -logi, -logy.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bi·olo·gist n.

Now do this with "projection". You see how that works.
Try the word "pitch". Are you going to argue the guy on the mound is a "pitchist"?

 

It is already done when you look up the word projectionist in the medical dictionary. The medical dictionary shows the word from which 'projectionist' is derived, and provides definitions applicable to both the medical profession and other professions as well as the psychological use. You lose.

 

So show us where in this medical dictionary it points to or refers in any way to the word "projectionist".
Don't tell us.
Show us.

 

Actually it doesn't... The SQL select statement uses the %LIKE% parameter instead of the more restrictive %WHERE% statement and thus find the "projection" substring that is include in "projectionist". Database are only as good as the guy who designed and programmed it. Try finding the word projectionist in the printed version of that dictionary and you won't get any result.

 

There are certain truths that we recognize and which allow us to reason, such as the classical laws of logic and the rules of inference. If the above hard line empiricist proposition is true, then they are not perceivable, and it would follow that we cannot reason. Other things would also not be perceivable, such as numbers, mathematical laws and rules, the economy, your name and the following proposition:

"There must be some underlying physical mechanism [responsible] for everything that is perceivable."

 

I already told you and already showed you. Goto the medical dictionary here: www.thefreedictionary.com/projectionist and you will see it right there on the search box and also on the left hand column you will find the following "projection
(redirected from projectionist)".

Try again dude. You keep right on failing.

 

Well, there you go making a positive assertion, so prove your claim.

 

You are showing how the search engine works, not the definition, not how a dictionary works.
Post a definition of the word "projectionist" used as you have abused it, or just stop this idiocy.
Anyone with a fifth grade education can see your desperation quite clearly.

 

Stop this "idiocy"? Hey look at this:
"So show us where in this medical dictionary it points to or refers in any way to the word "projectionist"."

It is very telling how inconsistent you can be. Yeppir that's right... that is a quote of YOUR words... Now I fully expect you to offer some rationalization (excuse) for that type of behavior that you are displaying. As for the desperation notion that you entertain.... who needs to be desperate when they have you around performing such idiotic stunts as that one demonstrated in the quote I provided above.

 

Yes. Idiocy.

 

Then you need to stop your blathering and challenging me to show you something that has been in plain sight every time you run the search on thefreedictionary.com for the word "projectionist".

 

thefreedictionary.com is not a medical dictionary. You lose again.

 

You lose again, because of your failure to notice that thefreedictionary.com contains a "medical" section containing medical definitions of terms. Have a nicer day than you have this early morning.

 

Again, you've shown how a search engine works, and proved your ignorance of how a dictionary works.

 

And again, you have shown YOUR ignorance by standing in denial of the relationship of the words 'projection' and 'projectionist' (using any of the definitions of projectionist), and the use of the suffix (-ist).

 

Give it a rest, Inc. You're wrong. Everybody knows you're wrong. And at this point you are only making a bigger fool of yourself.

 

You think and declare that I am wrong, yet you offer no proof that I am wrong. Now what is wrong with that picture? Lack of PROOF on your part... that is what the wrong is.

 

What is the need for him to offer proof of something that has been demonstratively proved repeatedly?
They say "No man is an island". They may be wrong.

Try it this way.
In your dictionary definition, there is no direction or association given to the word "projectionist" in the medical dictionary, but there is in the standard dictionary. The search engine is not part of the definition, it is a programming tool, completely separate from what it searches for. It does not help you in your quest for defending your academic shortcomings and lack of familiarity with the usage of basic grammatic tools.

Your lack of integrity is crushing any credibility you may have had, though admittedly that was not a very steep fall.