When you study many languages, like me, you find that every language has its own sweet spots. The experience of reading Pushkin in Russian seems to have no analogies in the whole English language and has resisted all attempts at translation. French postmodernist thought sounds great in French but (as a rule) turns to lousy and phony wordplay in other languages. And you never really get the point of Italian until you try singing in it, suddenly feeling the sounds come more naturally than in your language of birth, whatever it is.
It sounds to me as though this effect can be explained by things being lost in translation, which can happen to any language and is not indicative of a deep fundamental difference between languages. The true test of this theory would be to translate some English poetry into Russian and see if it comes out sounding deeper, or to translate some English postmodernism into French and see if it comes out sounding more authentic. It is actually believable that if you translate an English song into Italian that it will be more aesthetically pleasing - different languages have different patterns of sound, and some patterns of sound fit song better than others. But one rarely sings one's philosophy.
Nominull, your remarks about language here and above seem off (although my experience is narrower than cousin_it's, since I'm only bilingual, German is coming slowly, with little motivation). Each language has its sound, influencing the way you can use it for different tasks. Of course, you can accurately communicate a deeply understood concept in any language, by describing it redundantly, but that doesn't apply to the sum total of everyday use, in particular to viewing the language as a tool for refining your concepts.
David Stove's "What Is Wrong With Our Thoughts" is a critique of philosophy that I can only call epic.
The astute reader will of course find themselves objecting to Stove's notion that we should be catologuing every possible way to do philosophy wrong. It's not like there's some originally pure mode of thought, being tainted by only a small library of poisons. It's just that there are exponentially more possible crazy thoughts than sane thoughts, c.f. entropy.
But Stove's list of 39 different classic crazinesses applied to the number three is absolute pure epic gold. (Scroll down about halfway through if you want to jump there directly.)
I especially like #8: "There is an integer between two and four, but it is not three, and its true name and nature are not to be revealed."