Equivalent of "to be clothed" for plumage [closed]

Solution 1:

In my opinion, you've rejected the word that is exactly analogous and appropriate.

At least with respect to the scenario outlined in the question, as clothes is to clothed, so to is feathers to feathered.

Even if we were looking at the dictionary definition of feathered, "a very light cover or a fringe" is not what it means in this sense.

From Merriam-Webster's definition of feathered:

1 : having feathers
    // … misidentified as … a flying reptile, not a feathered dinosaur…
    — Luis M. Chiappe
    // referring to birds as "our feathered friends"
2 : covered or decorated with feathers
    // He was a big man, and in his costume— … feathered anklets, feathered gauntlets, beaded headband … —he seemed magnified in every dimension, almost a spirit-being.
    — Ian Frazier
    // From this region come the magnificent beadwork art, the buckskin garments, the great feathered war bonnet, and the concept of long fringed shirts.
    — Frederick J. Dockstader

However, in point of fact, we should not be looking at the dictionary definition of feathered. As far as this creature is concerned, that's beside the point. Just as it doesn't understand our use of clothed because it doesn't wear clothes, we (analogously) shouldn't be imposing our own use of feathered on its language—because we don't have feathers.

If clothed is appropriate to us, but meaningless to it, then it doesn't matter if feathered is not appropriate to us. Whatever it wears or has, the adjectival equivalent of that noun is appropriate to it.

Luckily though, feathered actually is meaningful, even by our definition of the word.