There's the now-famous Kalama Sutta where the Buddha specifically encourages people to not rely too much on canonical texts: https://suttacentral.net/an3.65/en/sujato
>The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery. Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Dao
Looking at Zhengzhang reconstruction of the title, for instance, we get the pronuciation /l'uːʔ tɯːɡ keːŋ/ (I don't know old Chinese phonology at all, I'm just working from wiktionary - please forgive any errors/take with a grain of salt). I don't see any particular reason for English-speakers to use the Modern Standard Chinese pinyin orthography/pronunciation to write terms that come from a considerably older way of speaking. (I say this as someone learning Classical + Middle Chinese using Middle-Chinese pronunciation).
Okay one possible reason is that it might be seen as good if the main inheritors of the tradition (the modern Chinese state+people) get given 'ownership' of it, and that outsiders speak using their preferred terminology/pronunciation. But I'm not personally on board with that, any more than I'd insist that people pronounce Shakespeare in American English.
[ I apologise for any snark that might be residual in this reply (and acknowledge that the remark is slightly tangential to the topic of this page) - I've tried to keep it constructive. ]