yup, completely different sounds for me too! good test!!

We're just outside of Chicago and we pronounce the words just like you... dawg (dog) and f-ahhh-x (fox). Two totally different sounds for the short o. Thank you for the comparison between the different dialects... Very helpful! I'm just glad there are others who can hear the difference, as well... I really thought I was going crazy there for awhile! ;)

Perfect! Thank you!!

thanks to everyone who chimed in today! and sorry to those who have spent their day occupied with the short o sound!! ;)

yes, exactly! :)

thank you!!! :) i can totally hear the aw sound in your short o cvc words. the way you said the ahh sound in father is the way we say the short o sound in almost all of our short o cvc words, such as box or ox. the exception to that (and what started this entire thread) is the short o cvc words that end in -og, such as dog and fog. those we say with the aw sound just like you. hope that makes sense!

call me crazy, but i hear two different sounds when you say the words hot and dog! when you say hot, i hear h-ah-t. when you say dog, i hear d-aw-g. and that's exactly how my video would sound, as well. eta: maybe it would be easier to hear the difference by comparing these two words: hot and hog. my mouth actually makes a different shape for each word when saying the o sound.

i know... so confusing! so sorry, everyone!! ;) with regards to the father/bother rhyme, i was simply attempting to demonstrate how i say a short o sound.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I'M OFF TO CHECK THIS OUT AT OUR LIBRARY!! :001_smile:

this is a brilliant way to look at it! in the midwest (where we're located), the word father would rhyme with bother. both of those words would actually make the short o sound. so to me, that sounds like ahhhhh. b-ahhhhh-th-er. f-ahhhh-th-er. i know it's really difficult to understand these sounds via text. :confused:

nope, we're actually yankees! :) i think i'm explaining this all wrong. sorry! let me try again... we pronounce it dawg. and that's how we hear it... with an awww sound in the middle. but the spelling, with the correct short o sound, makes us pronounce it incorrectly... d-ahhh-g. make sense?

i know this probably seems elementary to most of you, but we're struggling with the short o sound. any help on this topic would be much appreciated! a little background... we're using opgtr for phonics lessons with our kindergarten aged son and we're currently reviewing the short vowel sounds. up until this point, we've had no problems and the lessons have been quite easy. with the letter o, we started with cvc words such as and fox and mop. both of those were easy to sound out and made total sense, as we can easily hear the short o sound- ahhhhh (like you'd say at the dentist). however, the next lesson introduces words such as dog and log. my husband and i (and even our 5 year old son) are having troubles with this, as we hear an awww sound in dog, rather than ahhhh sound that we've been using. does that make sense? my son is actually sounding this word out (d-ahhh-g) by using the correct short o sound. But it sounds incorrect to us, as we pronounce it dawg. help please!!!!:confused:

Thanks so much, everyone... Your replies have been more than helpful! I've ordered a set of c-rods and can't wait for them to arrive so we can start playing around!! :) The videos at education unboxed are just fantastic!!!

Hi there! I'm new to this forum and will be homeschooling for the first time this fall. My son is 5.5 years old and is ready to start kindergarten math. After much research + deliberation, i've decided that I'd like to use Singapore essentials for our workbooks (really like the idea of number bonds!), but with the math-u-see manipulatives. I've searched to find another thread where members were using this same approach, but have come up empty handed. This leads me to believe one of two things... Either I'm missing something and shouldn't be using these two together for our math curriculum after all. Or, this is much too elementary to deserve a thread. ;) Please forgive me if this has already been covered. I know that I can purchase a base ten set of manipulatives through Sonlight and i can definitely see the merit in using those to teach place value with a ones/tens/hundreds chart. But- if I go that route, I wouldn't receive any 2, 3, 4, 5, etc blocks. I guess one of the main ideas that I like about the math-u-see manipulatives is that they seem like a fantastic way to introduce the idea of whole + part or number bonds. For instance, with the math-u-see blocks, I can easily demonstrate to my son the idea that the number 5 can be made with several different parts or combinations... 4 and 1 or 2 and 3, etc. Am I thinking of this correctly? Anyone else use Singapore essentials with math-u-see blocks? Do you see any cons with using this approach? Is there a better manipulative that I should be using to teach the Singapore method? I am aware of the c rods, but like the idea of the notched math-u-see manipulatives instead... Unless, of course, someone could change my mind. :) Thanks in advance! Any help would be much appreciated!!