But which liturgy? There was quite a big fight in the 60s and 70s over the prayer book and though it was not all about language, the "archaic" language of the 1928 BCP did draw fire and the 1979 pretty much modernized it. (It's been many, many years since I last opened my 1979 BCP, so I don't recall how much, and whether there's difference in language between Rite I and Rite II.)
As an Anglican, accustomed to (and loving) the language of the '28, I'd be very uncomfortable faced with what I perceive as the clunky language of the '79 Rite II. But a younger Episcopalian would probably be even worse off faced with what he would probably see as the stilted language of the '28.
(And back when the '79 was approved, not all bishops were very accomodating to Episcopalians who wanted to remain with the '28.)
Well, an 'upside' somewhere here, but do think these reductionist revisions - and as you have noted with the BCP - have lost much to the 'modernized clarity' and brought a 'flatness' into the language of the liturgy and, as well, into the various up-dates of the Bible.
The 'Liturgy-in-Latin' offered a 'spiritual resonance' that by-passed 'word-for-word' focus and instant analysis; and IMHO, a Latin Liturgy is more readily experienced as a 'language of the spirit'; so to speak. . . :^)