English mogs the rest of the world in efficiency, aside admittedly from French (and the evolution of English grammar and syntax largely comes from there, plus half the vocabulary).
When people got tired of Latin the international and cultural language was French for 300/350 years, then switched to English mid 20th century due to US dominance.
The problem is that Americanos went too far in globalizing the language, with their stupid insistence on having foreign plebs speak the language. The French (and classical Latin beforehand) were more subtle by only using a global langage among elites so it wouldn't be dumbed down by this status.

>>24641796
>And why does it seem like all old languages are synthetic?
Old Indo-european languages, and even that is not entirely true. Ancient Chinese was more analytic than today.
>What's better?
Mostly analytical languages are slightly more efficient at pushing information through (provided you don't go isolating) but even that is so blurred in covariant factors I wouldn't put too much emphasis on it.

Informationlet languages really need not apply.

>>512049111
You have no idea what you are talking about. Old English was a barbarian kitchen language that was comically inefficient at conveying information and had virtually no abstract vocabulary. In six hundred years of being used as the main language on the island before francization it produced 200 pages of literature.
Language becoming analytical was a good thing and those insisting on using the deprecated agglutination were doomed to irrelevance.

Posted without comment.