When taking about visuals, we can use the verb show as follows:
- I want to show you something.
- Can you show me?
What would be the corresponding verb to use when talking about sounds?
- I want to [verb] you something.
- Can you [verb] me?
I think the verb for it does not exist. All the answers and comments are good but they are good alternatives. Changing the sentence structure may get you to convey what you want but that was not the question. If you think like that then there are millions of way to construct sentences to work around some words or phrases. So I believe that the answer is that the word you are looking for does not exist.
You wouldn't say it that way. You'd say
The latter could be switched around to
But that still wouldn't cover all sounds, as I mentioned in my comment to you.
I'm going to disagree with Robusto's answer slightly and say that play is the equivalent you're looking for.
While it is true that play does not apply in all situations, I think you can also find situations where show does not make much sense for visuals.
Play is a general fit when you are either playing a recording, or playing a musical instrument. If you are talking about a more specific sound, you would use a more specific verb, like tell (for speech) or sing (for vocal music).
I don't think it's as simple as filling in blanks with corresponding sense words. I think there is also something to the usage of show in this question. For instance, in the first example, "play" functions similarly to "show".
But in the second example it does not:
This is because we can remove it and to with the verb show and not lose the meaning.
However, it should be noted that the unspoken it or something in "Can you show me" is the direct object of the sentence and me is the indirect object. Without the it/something, ambiguity exists. A similar sentence could be written where me is the direct object and there is no indirect object:
This omission is not always possible. Play does not function the same way as show though. We cannot remove it and for and retain the same meaning.
A closer meaning to OPs example would be "tell", which works identically in both cases:
However, tell only covers speech.
The combinations of verbs with dependent prepositions are vast in English; and it's not necessarily that we lack a verb to fit a specific construction, but that just because some verbs share a common trait (i.e. they deal with senses), they don't necessarily share a common construction. To show vs. To play is an example of this. With that said, all five sense words (taste, touch, see, smell, hear) can form identical constructions.
To emit, while applicable to more than sound, may also work — as show may not be limited to visuals.