English speakers should embrace natural pronunciation changes rather than artificially preserving archaic sounds
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/by/john-mcwhorter. "Opinion | What’s Better Left Unsaid - The New York Times." April 23, 2026. www.nytimes.com
The Gist
McWhorter argues that English speakers should stop trying to pronounce words exactly as they're spelled when the language has naturally evolved away from those sounds. He says it's silly to say 'off-ten' but not 'sof-ten' when both follow the same pattern, and that fighting natural language change just makes English unnecessarily complicated.
Conclusion
English speakers should accept natural pronunciation changes like saying 'offen' instead of 'off-ten' rather than artificially preserving archaic sounds based on spelling
Premises
- Current pronunciation preferences are inconsistent - people say 'off-ten' but not 'sof-ten' or 'lis-ten' despite similar linguistic structures
- Historical evidence shows English has always naturally dropped sounds over time, as seen in words like 'listen' (from 'list'), 'clothes' (originally pronounced 'close'), and 'falcon'
- Artificial preservation of archaic pronunciations based on spelling creates unnecessary complexity, as demonstrated by pedantic insertions like the 'l' in 'falcon' and 'b' in 'doubt'
- English spelling is already so disconnected from pronunciation (like 'victuals' pronounced 'vittles') that fighting natural sound changes is counterproductive
- With English being used by about 1 in 5 people worldwide, reducing linguistic complexity would be beneficial for global communication
Assumptions
- Natural language change is inherently good and should not be resisted
- Consistency in pronunciation rules is more valuable than preserving historical spellings
- Linguistic simplification benefits language users, especially non-native speakers
- Pedantic adherence to spelling-based pronunciation is motivated by misguided prescriptivism rather than practical communication needs