TL;DR - How we see the world will almost certainly change depending on the structure of our language. Our concepts are tightly linked with the physical world in such a way that either the physical world changes the structure of our language or the structure of our language influences our conceptualization of the physical world, or perhaps both together in some feedback fashion. Either way, how the world appears to us is tightly linked to the language we use when encountering it.

• Some languages have words for very specific feelings that other languages don't. One could argue that people who speak a language without specific ways to express such particular feelings are not impoverished by their lack of something to call the feelings, since they feel them all the same without having anything to call them. I would argue that they are indeed impoverished by not having the words to rely on; words are not solely something we pin to an experience after an event, but in fact most often cooccur with our experiences. Often, they will even create the feeling of the situation for us, albeit without us being too aware that is what's happening.

"If a lion could speak, we could not understand him"
I agree with the previous points made 'for'. However I am in favour of a more Wittgenstinian approach to linguistic relativity which advocated for a more reciprocal relationship between language games, culture and cognition, rather than arguing that language has a one-way affect on our world view.

A quote from Wittgenstein comes to mind: "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him".(Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 1953) To summarise, his theory describes that if a lion, or any other creature for that matter, could speak our language we would have great difficulty comprehending one another as lions do not have ‘any conceivable share in our world’.(ibid) In other words, there exists less in common between our daily lives that we would communicate so that what he might try to say and what we would understand in return would be nonsense. He may try to communicate ideas, concepts and feelings which do not exist to us and vice versa. In this sense we see inversely how our cognition affects our language since it is without a shared frame of reference that we cannot communicate.

On the other hand, looking at this in reverse, we could still say that this example also shows how our language affects our worldview as we struggle to comprehend concepts for which we do not have words, put nicely by another quote of Wittgenstein's, “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world".(Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922)

Language steers our thoughts, and shapes our perceptions.

Linguistic relativity hypothesis is how speech influences thought. This translates in a variety of ways, and as a result, language ascends from just being a method of communication. Our vocabulary, the context we use it in, even our sentence structure, affects us on a much deeper, fundamental level.

Our brains are constantly making a series of predictions based on our perceptions. Language perception is driven by expectations that are built upon our impressions and understanding. There are essentially three key elements that tie into linguistic reality; language, thought, and culture.
It's easy to see the significance that culture has on language perception when comparing dialects. For example, in North Queensland, Australia, the prominent language spoken is Guugu Yimithirr. Instead of having directional words like right, and left, they use north, south, east, and west. Here, a native resident would see a boy standing by the front door to his home and think, ‘he’s standing east of his house’ whereas an English-speaking individual would think, ‘he’s in front of his house’.

It’s a complex concept, one that illustrates how dialect impacts comprehension by [framing it, enhancing it, or filtering it] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201509/how-language-shapes-our-world). Take, for instance, how we perceive colors. The amount of terms relative to color is much smaller than the variants of color we interpret. Region alters these perceptions. For example, in Russian, there are twelve words that correlate to basic colors, whereas in New Guinea, there are only two.

Many things shape our daily lives, and language is just one of them.

A bit silly if you think about it

no this doesn't make sense it sounds nice to say it but just because you don't have a word for something doesn't mean you don't perceive it or the overall perception changes. For example, if you don't have a word for pain so you refer to it as very angry. you still experience pain despite not having a word for it. in the past cultures have not had a word for blue and have referred to it as something like greenish-yellow they still know what blue is. to quote Stephen Pinker "there is scant evidence to show that any specific rules of grammar are prewired in the brain and there is no need to invoke genes in order to account for grammatical structures, because these can be explained more simply and more plausibly as the product of cultural evolution and as a response to the exigencies of efficient communication."