Surely you’ve heard this. If not, it’s in here somewhere, along with more Bushisms:
Anyway. It took me a while to determine precisely why the not-word doesn’t work. I suspect many haven’t even considered the ramifications of such blatant not-wordness.
It’s like this. “Underestimate” and “overestimate” are specific statements. They both indicate an incorrect estimate. The “over-” and “under-” parts detail exactly how the estimate is incorrect: whether the estimate is larger or smaller than whatever is being estimated.
The prefix “mis” means “wrong.” Or with a second s, “not married.” Ok, I don’t know anything about latin or word roots. However, in the case of “underestimate,” the “mis” doesn’t work (like it does in “misunderstand”). For “underestimate,” an incorrect estimate is already established. Adding a “mis” to it, as Bush does, is unnecessary (and, like, really stupid-sounding). Bush is basically saying “incorrectly underestimated.” “Misestimate” would make more logical sense, because there would only be one negating prefix.
And now, we can all sleep easier for knowing not how, but why Bush is an idiot.
