I would disagree that comfortable words are necessary in order for one to "understand" a phenomenon. A mathematical description can constitute an understanding. It can even have greater utility in many cases than a verbal comprehension would.
QP has mostly given up on verbal explaination, Quantum physicists do use languaege in order to try and pass some of their knowledge on, but they will for the most part tell you that you can not really get it without math. I've often been told that, when it comes to QP, where the words and the math disagree, the mathematics hold the truth over the verbiage.
I definitely sympathize with Bohr though. It is easier for most of us to work with concepts. QP presents some challenges for us that's for certain
Quantum Physics is frustrating for a lot of us because the metaphors we are offered don't satisfy the realities of experiment very well. We still need to call the happenings down there something though, so much terminology remains in play simply for lack of better offerings.
(I actually like the language of Quantum Chromodynamics better, for the reason that it doesn't bother with "familiar" terms at all. Terms like "particle," "wave," and "spin" cause more trouble at times than they are worth I think.)
The key question is often "what is the utility of my understanding."
It still leaves the question, "can philosophy be separated from physics?"
I think the answer is no. But words are not the only descriptive tools we have (I'd argue they are not even the root of our own thought, but that's for another thread.) Math, pictures, models, simulations, and lists are among our many other tools.
One big problem with math is it is less universal than language. There are less folks equipped with the necessary familiarity with math. Another is that we often believe that we are receiving more (and often different) information than we are, from the words we hear. The same is true when "speaking" as well.
Then again, folks like to inject extraneous philosophy in situations where the explanation is unsatisfactory (like the confusing mathematics of QP.) Thus the gymnastics surrounding word based QP explanations.
I am not comfortable with QP's mathematics by any means, so I withhold judgment for the moment as to it's completeness. It is hard to argue with success though, and it is apparently good enough for a lot of very useful work to be done.
It is interesting to me that the strangest descriptions happen right where the math says the least, such as with how/why a probability wave function collapses into a finite reality. Most of the verbal explanations seem to replace one mystery with another. Some (including myself) hope that someday either by math or language (preferably both) someone will discover a satisfying explanation.