I don't think this argumentation is correct. There are two things that you are assuming -
(1) The authors would not have been capable of expressing their view with similar levels of 'feel' if they were not born to an English Speaking language hence imparting the 'feel' to English and not just to the authors
(2) You are not feeling the 'feel' more intensely because you are not a native English speaker hence the language and wordplay are less obvious to you as those who speak English primarily.
Secondly as beautiful as the description of multiple languages it may be in GP, I fail to see why won't people adapt the one single language to have extensions - words that describe feelings, emotions and expressions not available originally. Any modern language is, in fact, not the same as it was say a 100 years ago. It has been modified to add newly invented objects like for Computers and Televisions, or newly discovered ones like Idli and Dosa. I think that our desire of saving languages is not pragmatic but aesthetic.
No, paganel is saying that translating from one language to another results in less 'feel', not that 'feel' depends on English.
> You are not feeling the 'feel' more intensely because you are not a native English speaker hence the language and wordplay are less obvious to you as those who speak English primarily.
The parent comment says that the original English is better, not worse. Thus, there is more 'feel' in the original than in translation.
Exactly. For all it's worth, once I started reading John le Carré or Raymond Chandler novels in original English (I'm a native Romanian speaker) I could never go back to reading them in translation, not that the translations were bad, they weren't, but the texts just didn't have the same feeling.
And when you start reading (and partially comprehending) poetry written in a foreign language is a whole different ball-game.