"Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo." Although the ambiguity is all in the syntax.

Actually, I disagree with some possible connotations of "better" here. It might be that many thoughts are most accurately expressed using ambiguous sentences, but that is probably because the thoughts are ambiguous as well (and I see that as pretty likely).

Example: "I'd like some icecream." seems quite like a typical thought. I have thought of that form as qualia, and they seem kind of useful. However, they are ambiguous all over the place.

1. They omit a lot of (my) default assumptions: I'd like it now. I'd like it for eating. I'd like to consume it in company of some peers. I'd best like citron.
2. They imply (but not state) some course of action.
3. They imply (but not state) a request for other people around me to join in my pursuit for icecream.
4. They signal (if uttered) a lot of stuff to the people around, e.g. relaxedness

But "better" also has the connotation of "optimal" in a utilitarian sense. And it might be that thoughts should best not be expressed in ambiguous terms, because that creates weird priming-effects which depend on your culture. If you think "I'd like some icecream" and your language lacks a proper distinction between icecream-type-A and icecream-type-B you are priming also for the wrong icecream type everytime you process that thought.

Now, one might come to the conclusion that you should just avoid verbalizing thoughts, but that will make communication difficult to say the least, as communication will in general involve passing categories of things. But maybe verbalizing a bit less internally might remove some of the cultural effects our respective languages bring.