English and Unix are both strong arguments that "good enough" is the best way to communicate, that being more rigid and formal and, well, consistent, is actually counterproductive.
But relatively rigid ("strongly typed"?) languages like Latin and ancient Greek were also very expressive, so I'm not sure that's a convincing argument.
As for Unix - it's the Java of operating systems.
I'd love to see the Haskell or the Lisp of operating systems, but we seem stuck around 1975 as far as OS research goes.
What do you mean by this? IMHO Java's goal was ubiquitous mediocrity: a cross-platform VM for a language suitable for large teams of interchangeable workers. We had Lisp operating systems (and hardware) back in the day, and it didn't catch on.
Also in my opinion, word order is easier to deal with instead of tons of endings for parts of speech.
I'm not sure what the Haskell of operating systems would be like.
Regardless, it may be worth adding that ZetaLisp was one of the most important "source" dialects from which Common Lisp emerged, and that Symbolics people were heavily involved in the process. Genera wasn't so far from being "an OS of Common Lisp" even before there was a Common Lisp.
Common Lisp OTOH is a domain independent Lisp standard with only very few specific OS-related features.
Instead, Imperial England left on the world a linguistic legacy to which we adhere out of convenience of circumstance, and probably will for the long foreseeable future: "learn once, enjoy commerce and education everywhere!"