Raskolnikov, Schultz, thank you both. Good thoughts.
I've been interested in languages for some time, and I teach two of them (English and Spanish). It's become apparent to me that one of the reasons English has served so well as a global language (other than the spread of the British Empire) is that it has the ability to incorporate new words and the knack to ascribe to each of those new words a new meaning. In a classic example, the French word "catel" entered English as "cattle," whereas the later French word "beof" (meaning "ox"; related to the English word "bovine") entered English as "beef." Though related, "cattle" and "beef" cannot be used interchangeably. This process allows English to have a great capacity for new words and nuances of meaning. Thus English serves well as a language of diplomacy and philosophy.
By comparison, Spanish, though a beautiful and romantic language, is constricted by Latin grammar. It can borrow terms, as can be seen with "el W.C." and "el ticket," but they do sound less than symphonic. Furthermore, there is no significant difference between "el ticket" and the indigenous word, "el boleto." On the other hand, words like "el crisis" and "la iglesia," obviously of Greek origin, roll off the tongue of the native Spanish speaker. So Spanish can borrow terms from some languages with less difficulty than others, while English borrows freely from all languages, incorporating "burrito" as easily as "vodka" or "sushi" (can you tell it's almost dinnertime?).
That said, I concur with your opinion that not all languages are equal in their ability to express ideas. Borrowed words are but one way to test a language's capacity for expression, and one with which I am most familiar. Philosophy, though in theory is beyond words, still needs language to convey its truths.