Good use of language is important, especially for presidents. What matters more, though, is what a president’s actions say.
For years, George H.W. Bush joked that his infelicity with off-the-cuff public speaking led some to conclude that English was his second language; several humorous asides at his memorial service Wednesday made reference to that.
It’s absolutely true that Bush evinced some odd phraseologies. “Whine on, harvest moon,” he said of former Vice President Walter Mondale in one debate — and no, context doesn’t really make that one any better. More than a few other times did Bush get confusingly tongue-tied. My personal favorite was when he tried to make reference to the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, and what came out was “Nitty Ditty Nitty Gritty Great Big Bird.”
But Bush’s verbal oddities were endearing. I have far less patience with widespread misuse of grammar and vocabulary now accepted in common parlance. The ones most impactfully concerning to me are the nonword “impactful” and the use and misuse of “concerning” as an adjective, synonymous with “disturbing,” “bothersome,” or “distressing.”
Granted, I’m an old fuddy-duddy: If it’s not in my 1975 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, or perhaps in the Oxford English Dictionary, then it’s not a word. The 1975 Webster’s says “impact” is a verb only in physical sense of actually making forceful contact, with no mention at all of today’s sense of one occurrence merely “affecting” something else. As for “concerning,” perish the thought. It is a preposition which means, and only means, “with regard to” or “relating to.” It does not, cannot, be an adjective meaning “disquieting” or “troublesome.”
On the other hand, sometimes even the rich English language fails to offer the right word. For example, what’s desperately needed is an adjectival form of the word “integrity,” in its fullest sense not merely of honesty but of fullness and trueness of a well-ordered character.
I would gladly offer to accept “impactful” and “concerning” if only somebody would create an adjective really capturing integrity. “Integrous,” perhaps? No, that doesn’t work. Neither does “integral.” But we really do need something. Bush’s funeral showed why: He wasn’t perfect, but in the big picture, as many speakers noted, he really did exhibit remarkable integrity. I find it really concerning that there was no impactful word to use as a modifier to capture that quality of his.
Because, if you want to get down to the nitty ditty, or whatever, Bush’s integrous character is what allowed him to leave the legacy we cherish.
