# Why do we have two of some things but only one of others?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-two-of-some-things-but-only-one-of-others/958333>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [January 25, 2022, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-two-of-some-things-but-only-one-of-others/958333 "2022-01-25T01:27:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2022, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-two-of-some-things-but-only-one-of-others/958333/8 "2022-01-26T03:13:38Z")

</div>

> [@Chronos](#):
>
> and I guess that your choice of “wangs” was because you didn’t want to even try to figure out the Latin plural for “penis”. It’s “penes”, if you were wondering

That should have been a clue to you that both spellings were tounge-in-cheek, but this board has never been short of people with much pedantry and little perception of humor. This has happened before:

> [@Orders, Families, Evolution and Individuals](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orders-families-evolution-and-individuals/780690/25):
>
> So you have an issue with faux-Latiniatization of plurals but not the use of the term “wang”? My rule of thumb: in non-formal writing, if any word sounds funny getting the “ii” suffix for pluralization, that justifies the words getting the “ii” suffix for pluralization.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-two-of-some-things-but-only-one-of-others/958333)._