> Having a word for it vs being able to describe it. I'd argue the first suggests greater importance.

That's not universal though. Some languages like Japanese, German, & Inuit are synthetic, so a "word" may be more like a compound phrase in an analytic language. So "having a word for it" can be identical to "being able to describe it". In this case it's a particularly short word, so your point is otherwise valid. I'd say that it's probably more "low Kolmogorov complexity vs high Kolmogorov complexity" of the word or phrase that matters. Concepts expressable with lower-complexity words or phrases are likely more common & thus more culturally important than those requiring high-complexity words or phrases.