Mais y a-t-il des raisons linguistiques qui font l’Anglais une meilleure langue?
Remember, the subject of the OP was whether or not there is a linguistically supreme language. Are you suggesting that French is linguistically inferior to English? If so, why?
And what about Spanish and French?
I don’t know if these is entirely true. While many words do have the same overall meaning, there are nuances. An example that came to mind is jump, spring and leap. It is true that jump could substitute for spring and leap. But they invoke different images to me. I’m sure there are better examples out there.
Newspeak.
Orwell - 1984. Reread it.
Can we, by controlling language, control the thoughts? That is what happens when one believes that there can be one objectively best language.
More to the point is that, in the natural world, one language is never “better” than another, any more than a whale is a better creature than a lion. They are both adapted for particular environments and have structures to meet particular needs. To have a structure for a need that does not exist would be silly and wasteful. The most foolhardy is when a culture tries to make its language a static entity (I think of the French) rather than to accept that language is a dynamic adaptive beast.
Now with that said, one can ask if particular languages meet particular functions better (becuase such has been the demand of the culture(s) in which it formed). And one can ask specifically about the ability to adapt rapidly to changing needs to express different sorts of concepts.
For this critera one could make a good argument that American English wins, by virtue of its success in doing exactly that, as shown by its being adapted as the default language of science and international commerce. The reason being that it has the most diverse contributions ( result of America being such a mix of cultures to start with) and the least attachment to old forms. If another language has a word that fits the bill, it becomes part of English. Yiddish, German, French, Chinese, Greek, Latin, and on and on - all have donated words to English when their word fit the conceptual need better than something extant within English. This willingness to be a hodgepodge, a pidgen of all sorts, an amalgalm, has made it the most adaptable of the world’s languages, the generalist of tongues. Other languages may serve different niches better.
Alternatively, American English is simply the current 800 lb. gorilla that “wins” in the arenas of science and commerce solely because it has the most money behind it (piggybacking on the lead it got when British English was similarly supported). If this is the case, it has nothing to do with adaptability, resilience, or linguistic success–it is merely the linguistic extension of political and military hegemony, much as Latin superseded Greek (despite the claims of some that Greek was linguistically superior to Latin).
Arguing for a ‘supreme language’ is fascist.
Is there a ‘supreme race’? What language do they speak?
German, maybe English. Whatever your simple-minded conception of " fascist" might be.
Grow up ** glutemous**, and get a job. One that gives credit for knee-jerk constructions.
** kiss ** ______ 
I’d say that would probably be some variant of the Alabama dialect.
Tom, a good point (the 800 pound gorilla one) but I’d still argue that America’s polycutural heritage has resulted in a flexible and rapidly evolving language that is well suited for today’s rapidly changing world.
Gluteus is of course correct. As Syme said, “The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.”