Building your Vocabulary One Word at a Time
insessorial (in seh ‘sore ee ehl) adj perching, or adapted for perching
OK, we have a word, a nice adjective that they probably use often in the field of ornithology. I think you might find it useful in other circumstances as well. I don’t think I’ve ever come across it in context before, but when I stumbled across it in my dictionary I thought it noteworthy.
When I looked “insessorial” up online, however, I found this definition which gives us a little more information about the ornithological origins of this word, and provides us with a curious example of the word’s use in literature.
What the fuck was Guy Davenport trying to say in 1974? I mean, I understand that Bruno is not lactating in order to provide nourishment for his coffee. I get the first half of this sentence. Bruno is standing by the fire slowly sipping his coffee, but what the fuck is going on in the last half of that sentence. Unless Bruno has a bantam rooster stuffed in his trousers, the last half of that sentence makes no sense.
I assume that by “cock” Guy Davenport means “penis”. Then you get to “snub and insessorial” which according to my dictionary must mean “short and perched like a bird”.
A penis does not perch like a bird. A penis can dangle, waggle, protrude, penetrate or flop, but it does not perch like a bird.
And where is Bruno’s penis allegedly perched? “…in the codpiece of his curt briefs” Briefs don’t have a “codpiece”. Suits of armor have codpieces. Trousers from the 15th and 16th century had codpieces, but not briefs in 1974. Briefs have a “hammock” or “pouch”, but not a “codpiece”, and they’re “briefs” for god’s sake, no need to tell us they are “curt”, or “short”. Have you ever seen long briefs?
So Bruno is standing around the fire, sipping coffee in his underwear. Guy Davenport, on the other hand has surrounded Bruno’s dick with flowery, nonsensical language, even though it, and in this case “it” can refer to either the penis or the language, is doing nothing.