I think English is expressively poorer for the lack of a mood system, which we have let rot to the point where the subjunctive is only useful in very limited idioms.
It prevents us from leaving consideration open to alternative realities and pushes us too far into a logically-positivistic framing of everything.
This has been good for us as a people. We got Boole, Russel and Whitehead, Newton, etc. But clear is not deep.
In particular, it would help if we got a full optative and subjunctive, so that one could easily express what is presumably objective, what is affected by will, and what is simply questionable, without having to say so with full elaboration.
Someone has requested explication:
Languages like ancient Greek have verb forms that are used to deal with situations that may or may not be real, but that one wishes to play out at length without deciding or pretending that they are real. Two common reasons for considering alternate realities are the wish things could be otherwise, or the recognition that two cases are mutually exclusive, so both cannot be actual.
We have two different ways to deal with alternative versions of reality in English -- the subjunctive and modal verbs. But both of these are incomplete, or have so many of their moving parts co-opted by other idioms that they become hard to use consistently. So when you wish to discuss alternative versions of events, they do not even get used most of the time, and the discussion gets framed in terms of explicit separate cases.
Actual application of mood usually continues for less than two sentences, at which point, things get real, even if they are not.