English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let's suppose A rhymes with B and B rhymes with C. Does A always rhyme with C?

share|improve this question
First, I believe "transitional" should be "transitive". Second, I believe the answer is "yes", if include only "true" rhyme, that is, omit "forced" rhyme, such as rhyming "n" and "m", which is done a lot. – Hexagon Tiling Apr 6 '12 at 7:56
@HexagonTiling: good one! What were I thinking.. – progo Apr 6 '12 at 9:57
Well ... Lord rhymes with fraud in England, and fraud rhymes with nod in California. – Peter Shor Apr 6 '12 at 10:18
@Hexagon Yes, many rhymes are just "close", not "exact". It's not really like a mathematical "equals" operation, but more like "approximately equal". So just as you could say that 1.00 ~= 1.01 and 1.01 ~= 1.02, after a long enough chain you could end up with something quite different from what you started with. – Jay Apr 6 '12 at 15:04
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Except in the technical case of equivocal words (where a single word has multiple pronunciations). If B was an equivocal word, it could rhyme with both A and C, yet A and C would not rhyme. For example:

A = taxes
B = axes
C = taxis

In this case, B is the plural of axe to rhyme with A, and the plural of axis to rhyme with C, but A and C do not rhyme.

(Some might argue that this shouldn't count, because B is really two words, not one. Fair enough; I did mention this counterexample was a technicality that breaks the transitive property of rhyming. I still felt it was worth a mention.)

EDIT. Since I've been called on my counterexample in the comments below, I offer one more example to mull over:

A = dollop \ˈdä-ləp\
B = scallop \ˈskä-ləp, ˈska-ləp\
C = gallop \ˈga-ləp\

Most dictionaries list two pronunciations for scallop; one rhymes with A (dollop), the other rhymes with C (gallop).

Now, B isn't technically two words, but one - albeit with two pronunciations. Still, A rhymes with B, and B rhymes with C, but A doesn't rhyme with C.

So, as the O.P. asked, "Does A always rhyme with C?"

share|improve this answer
Thanks. I was skeptical about the transitiviness and thought there must be a clear counterexample lying there. Well, this is one even if a bit technical. – progo Apr 6 '12 at 10:00
I don't feel this is a counterexample. As JR himself/herself has said, "axes" (more than one axe) and "axes" (more than one axis) are two different words. – user16269 Apr 6 '12 at 10:27
@progo: I agree with David Wallace that this is not a counterexample. I agree with the answer that he gave. However, I can't refrain from telling an old joke that hedges one's bets: "If A = B, and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law." – Hexagon Tiling Apr 6 '12 at 11:32
@DavidWallace: if that's your qualm, we can fix it (see edit). – J.R. Apr 6 '12 at 15:04
Wow, that's a good edit. I hadn't even thought of that particular case. I guess rhyming isn't transitive after all. I would hypothesise that in any one person's idiolect, rhyming is transitive; although I suspect that if I do, someone will come along and say "well, sometimes I pronounce neither with an EE sound, and sometimes I pronounce neither with an EYE sound, so it's not true in my idiolect". Maybe I should delete my original answer. – user16269 Apr 7 '12 at 7:42

Yes. "A rhymes with B" is a relationship of sameness; that is, a certain part of A is the same as the corresponding part of B. The mathematical term for this is an "equivalence relation", which is always reflexive (everything rhymes with itself), symmetric (if A rhymes with B, then B rhymes with A) and transitive.

share|improve this answer
Yes, something I was thinking of. But there are more than enough ambiquities and other examples that I'm not sure if the transitiviness holds trivially. – progo Apr 6 '12 at 10:21
Ambiquities ... sort of like iniquities? – GEdgar Apr 6 '12 at 15:05

If you're talking about perfect rhyme, the answer is no. The pair obtain and remain are a perfect rhyme, as are retain and remain, but obtain and retain do not form a perfect rhyme, since they both end with -tain, and the vowels before -tain are different. If you want rhymes to be transitive, you have to allow identical rhymes (see link above) and say that a word rhymes with itself.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.