Generally, double consonants are not pronounced distinctly in English, unless they are part of different syllables and the emphasis is on the second syllable.
A word like dissatisfied is formed by adding a prefix dis- to the word satisfied. It starts off with two s in separate syllables, and can be pronounced like that- one at the end of the first syllable, one at the end of the second syllable.
A word like irregular is formed by adding a prefix in- to the word regular. The n-r combination is difficult to say, so we replace the n by another r. The same thing happens with the letter l, so in + licit becomes illicit. According to Cambridge Dictionary, the first l is not pronounced, likewise with in + modest. Note that this conversion only happens with word that passed through medieval latin: more modern words like inroad (1540), inlay (16th C) and inline (1913) are unaffected.
The same kind of conversion happens in arabic for sun letters (il+r -> irr). In arabic double consonants are always clearly pronounced, and this applies to sun letter conversions too.
In a non-rhotic dialects there is an identifiable reaason for not pronouncing the first r, because in non-rhotic dialects (England english, for example) an r followed by a consonant is not pronounced.
In rhotic dialects such as US english, the pronunciation of the n-become-r is, according to Merriam-Webster, optional.
I am a native of England (non-rhotic) and I do not pronounce it as a double r. I can and do double the r when speaking arabic, so I do understand the difference. Other natives of England do not pronounce the double r. If I heard somebody pronounce it with a double r, I would assume that they were foreign. I believe that I have heard natives of Scotland (rhotic) pronouncing it with a double r. I cannot comment on US english.
Here are recordings of me saying irregular and erectile:
And here I say irregular again, pronouncing the two r's separately.
New York accent, with accent transcribed:
ygUDuh
ygUDuh (Y'godda: you've got to)
ydoan (Ya doan: You don't)
yunnuhstan (You unnerstand; for understand)
ydoan o (You doan owe)
yunnuhstand dem (Yunnerstand 'em: you understand them)
yguduh ged (Ya godda get; for you've got to get)
yunnuhstan dem doidee (Yunner stand 'em doity, for you understand them [as] dirty)
yguduh ged riduh (You gotta get ridda for You've got to get rid of)
ydoan o nudn (Ya' doan owe nuthin for You don't owe nothing)
LISN bud LISN (Lissen, bud, for listen)
o in the poem is owe, as in owe money.
Then it goes on:
dem =them
gud =god
am [them goddamn]
lidl yelluh bas = little yellow bas-
tuds weer goin =tards we're goingda [going to]
duhSIVILEYEzum = civilize'em
He is saying: goddamn those little yellow bastards we're going to civilize them.
I have not looked into this in depth, however, the Lower East Side of New York
at the time late 19th and early 20th century had both Chinese and Jewish immigrants. The New York accent originated with Yiddish speakers who then learned English. The most salient feature of their speech was making ir into oi: a shirt, a shoit. There were others, too.
In any case, E.E. Cummings who wrote some of the the most memorable poems of the 20th century certainly outdid himself here. Later, manipulating spelling and words would become his hallmark. The only redeeming grace I can think of here is that he was imitating a a racist drunkard. By making the speech so horrible (in a sense), he is also putting down the racist speaker in the poem.
Here's one of his most charming poems: [in Just-]
[in Just-]
BY E. E. CUMMINGS
in Just
-spring when the world is mud-
luscious the little
lame balloonman
whistles far and wee
and eddieandbill come
running from marbles and
piracies and it's
spring
when the world is puddle-wonderful
the queer
old balloonman whistles
far and wee
and bettyandisbel come dancing
from hop-scotch and jump-rope and
it's
spring
and
the
goat-footed
balloonMan whistles
far
and
wee
Best Answer
What you have heard is exactly correct. The difference is not reflected in spelling, however, because native speakers of English do not hear the difference. To our ears /p/ and /ph/ are the same sound.
You hear these as different sounds because your language (or one you are familiar with—Urdu, perhaps?) distinguishes aspirated stops ph,dh,th,dh,kh,gh, which have a little puff of air when the consonant is 'released', from unaspirated versions of the same sounds which do not have the puff of air—p,b,t,b,d,g.
In your language these aspirated stops are distinct phonemes—sounds which distinguish one word from another. In English, however, they are not phonemes but merely allophones—variant versions of a phoneme which occur in specific phonetic environments.
Specifically, in English the voiceless stop phonemes ( /p/,/t/,/k/ ) are pronounced as aspirate phones ( [ph],[th],[kh] ) only at the beginning of a word or stressed syllable, and then only if they are not preceded by /s/. But in these contexts the phonemes /p/, /t/, /k/ are always aspirated.
The voiced stop phonemes /b/, /d/, /g/ are not aspirated.