Does "blog" rhyme with "dog" in American English? Or with "jog"?
The Pronunciation of "Blog" in American English
In my dialect at least, "blog" rhymes with "dog", being pronounced [bL\O:k_X].
In my dialect, "blog", "dog", and "jog" all rhyme with each other. The same would definitely hold true for all my fellow cot-caught merged North Americans (like Kirk and Uriel), and for speakers of British or Australian English.
In cot-caught unmerged North American English, the variable extent of the lot-cloth split means that "blog", "dog", and "jog" may or may not all rhyme with each other.
In cot-caught unmerged North American English, the variable extent of the lot-cloth split means that "blog", "dog", and "jog" may or may not all rhyme with each other.
I forgot to mention that my "dog" ([dO:k_X]) and "jog" ([dZa:k_X]) do not rhyme; I tend to automatically assume that everyone is cot-caught-unmerged unless the subject is specifically brought up, being cot-caught-unmerged myself.
How can "dog" fail to rhyme with "jog"? They both have the same sound like that of "cot" in them. I don't see how cot-caught merging comes into it. Caught has a longer vowel sound than cot in standard British English that is quite unlike dog or jog.
<<How can "dog" fail to rhyme with "jog"? They both have the same sound like that of "cot" in them. I don't see how cot-caught merging comes into it. Caught has a longer vowel sound than cot in standard British English that is quite unlike dog or jog.>>
But in the context of North American English, cot-caught merging does come into it. That's because North American English has undergone the so-called lot-cloth split, in which certain words that used to have the vowel of "cot" shift so that they have the vowel of "caught". Generally in North American English, this split affected the word "dog" but not the word "jog". Compare http://m-w.com/dictionary/dog with http://m-w.com/dictionary/jog : converting into X-SAMPA phonetic script, the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists [dOg] as the primary pronunciation of "dog" but [dZAg] as the primary pronunciation for "jog". This is analogous to how, for many speakers of British English, the words "pass" and "mass" don't rhyme.
But in the context of North American English, cot-caught merging does come into it. That's because North American English has undergone the so-called lot-cloth split, in which certain words that used to have the vowel of "cot" shift so that they have the vowel of "caught". Generally in North American English, this split affected the word "dog" but not the word "jog". Compare http://m-w.com/dictionary/dog with http://m-w.com/dictionary/jog : converting into X-SAMPA phonetic script, the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists [dOg] as the primary pronunciation of "dog" but [dZAg] as the primary pronunciation for "jog". This is analogous to how, for many speakers of British English, the words "pass" and "mass" don't rhyme.
>>How can "dog" fail to rhyme with "jog"? They both have the same sound like that of "cot" in them. I don't see how cot-caught merging comes into it. Caught has a longer vowel sound than cot in standard British English that is quite unlike dog or jog.<<
As mentioned by Lazar, depending on the degree of the lot-cloth split, in cot-caught-unmerged dialects "dog" and "jog" may or may not rhyme.
As mentioned by Lazar, depending on the degree of the lot-cloth split, in cot-caught-unmerged dialects "dog" and "jog" may or may not rhyme.
<<In my dialect, "blog", "dog", and "jog" all rhyme with each other. The same would definitely hold true for all my fellow cot-caught merged North Americans (like Kirk and Uriel), and for speakers of British or Australian English.>>
Yeah, I have [blA:g] [dA:g] and [dZA:g] for those.
<<In cot-caught unmerged North American English, the variable extent of the lot-cloth split means that "blog", "dog", and "jog" may or may not all rhyme with each other.>>
Yeah, the "lot-cloth" split in "cot-caught" unmerged Americans means those may not rhyme. Which ones rhyme with which may depend on dialect.
<<How can "dog" fail to rhyme with "jog"? They both have the same sound like that of "cot" in them.>>
Not for all dialects. Dialects with the "lot-cloth" split (which are also by definition "cot-caught" unmerged as well) may have different vowels for those words. The "lot-cloth" split is no longer really a part of RP (or only is in very conservative speakers' speech) but I believe some regional UK dialects may still have it, while the "lot-cloth" split has survived in "cot-caught" unmerged places of the US.
<<I don't see how cot-caught merging comes into it.>>
Oh, it does. Read above :)
Yeah, I have [blA:g] [dA:g] and [dZA:g] for those.
<<In cot-caught unmerged North American English, the variable extent of the lot-cloth split means that "blog", "dog", and "jog" may or may not all rhyme with each other.>>
Yeah, the "lot-cloth" split in "cot-caught" unmerged Americans means those may not rhyme. Which ones rhyme with which may depend on dialect.
<<How can "dog" fail to rhyme with "jog"? They both have the same sound like that of "cot" in them.>>
Not for all dialects. Dialects with the "lot-cloth" split (which are also by definition "cot-caught" unmerged as well) may have different vowels for those words. The "lot-cloth" split is no longer really a part of RP (or only is in very conservative speakers' speech) but I believe some regional UK dialects may still have it, while the "lot-cloth" split has survived in "cot-caught" unmerged places of the US.
<<I don't see how cot-caught merging comes into it.>>
Oh, it does. Read above :)
<<I would think most Americans are cot-caught merged.>>
Well, most estimates that I've seen place the number of merged Americans at 40-50%. The distinction is still very strong in much of the Northeast, South, and Midwest. But if you add English-speaking Canadians into the mix, all (or nearly all) of whom are merged, then it's quite conceivable that the number of merged North American English speakers could be over 50%.
Well, most estimates that I've seen place the number of merged Americans at 40-50%. The distinction is still very strong in much of the Northeast, South, and Midwest. But if you add English-speaking Canadians into the mix, all (or nearly all) of whom are merged, then it's quite conceivable that the number of merged North American English speakers could be over 50%.
<<I would think most Americans are cot-caught merged.>>
Actually, "cot-caught" merged Americans are in the minority, but not a small one. The estimates I most often see state that 40% of Americans are "cot-caught" merged but linguists have noted that the change is spreading (however, some dialects are resistant to it because of the way their vowels are positioned so it's very unlikely to spread to all American speakers). I would suspect it's currently anywhere between the low to high 40s in terms of percentage. Also, some people are "transitionally" merged, so they sometimes merge the sounds or only consistently merge the sounds in certain positions but not in others, so you have to decide whether or not they count, too. Wikipedia cites famous linguist William Labov's finding that 60% of Americans distinguish "cot-caught" and 40% don't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cot-caught_merger#Cot-caught_merger
As Lazar said, almost all English-speaking Canadians are "cot-caught" merged so if you're considering English-speaking North Americans as a whole it would probably push the percentage over 50% as "cot-caught" merged.
Actually, "cot-caught" merged Americans are in the minority, but not a small one. The estimates I most often see state that 40% of Americans are "cot-caught" merged but linguists have noted that the change is spreading (however, some dialects are resistant to it because of the way their vowels are positioned so it's very unlikely to spread to all American speakers). I would suspect it's currently anywhere between the low to high 40s in terms of percentage. Also, some people are "transitionally" merged, so they sometimes merge the sounds or only consistently merge the sounds in certain positions but not in others, so you have to decide whether or not they count, too. Wikipedia cites famous linguist William Labov's finding that 60% of Americans distinguish "cot-caught" and 40% don't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cot-caught_merger#Cot-caught_merger
As Lazar said, almost all English-speaking Canadians are "cot-caught" merged so if you're considering English-speaking North Americans as a whole it would probably push the percentage over 50% as "cot-caught" merged.
One thing I always read is that supposedly the city of San Francisco is not "cot-caught" merged, but everyone I've known from has merged them except for one--a professor of mine I had last year. It was striking to hear an otherwise Californian accent that very clearly distinguished "cot-caught." He said he was a third-generation San Franciscan which I'm sure is related to him making the distinction. I think traditionally San Franciscan speech distinguished the two clearly while people my age (early 20s) who have grown up there sound like anyone else in California to me. It's probably a recessive feature of old San Franciscan speech which has been changing due to intense and prolonged (decades-long) daily speaker-to-speaker contact with the other 37 million Californians who are "cot-caught" merged, including everyone else in the Bay Area, even the cities right next door. For an example from this board, Deborah has spent good parts of her life in San Francisco (didn't she grow up there, too?) and I believe she's "cot-caught" merged.