Indeed. The 79 BCP and the ICEL Novus Ordo foolishly opted to translate from scratch instead of relying on the hallowed style that had already been part of English liturgy for centuries.
I share your hope for better times for the Latin Rite sionssar, but even though the latest draft translation that leaked out was unquestionably better than the ICEL monstrosity, it still, disappointingly, was not very beautiful. The language was still very modern and flat, with nothing of the thee's and thou's that really make English so poetic.
There are many reasons to hold on to liturgical English. One is the fact that only with thee/thou and ye/you are the differences between 2nd person plural/singular and subjective/objective (found in nearly all other modern languages, and in all of the old liturgical languages we are translating from), another is beauty, and perhaps most important is that liturgical English is a stable liturgical "dialect" or language that doesn't vary from century to century.
Anyone who is well versed in traditional language falls right into prayer and worship when the cadences and familiar verbage comes along. It doesn't matter if one is reading Cranmer's prayer book or modern Orthodox translations done into traditional liturgical English. And our great-great grandchildren will be able to pray with any of the above.
If you look at the main liturgical languages in use in the Orthodox world (liturgical Greek and Church Slavonic), neither is the modern vernacular, and both take a little effort to learn.
Although Mike the Geek wrote the above, I do rather hope for better times for the Latin Rite. Though I have never heard it and do not know it, I am presuming that (I may have been told this) it is more beautiful and powerful, even if you have to learn Latin, than what replaced it.