That’s so wrong!
It’s “Führer”, with umlaut.
1 Like
I did it intentionally for two reasons.
- It has become the common way to write it like that in english.
- To further distance myself from the original meaning in german, and thus have it more humour appropriate.
1 Like
1st listening: “What the… Why does he whisper? Is he locked inside the toilet?”
2nd listening: “Oh, yeah, he stated that at the beginning…”
1 Like
Oh, he isn’t?
At the beginning I say: “I’m in the bathRRRoom”, but my pronounce is not so clear.
Without a toilet? Weird bathrrrrrroom. 
Is that so important? The most important thing is the toilet paper orientation!
2 Likes
A bathroom without a toilet but with a toilet paper holder? You have strange bathrooms in Italy… 
1 Like
In my house the loo and the bath/sink are in two separate rooms, next to each other. (The one with the loo is tiny.)
Also I’m still not home yet 
One hour to go…
1 Like
That’s odd! Never seen this. Some older buildings had only one toilet on each floor (the people on that floor had to share that toilet).
Don’t worry, I am still working too… 
1 Like
That’s how it should be, imo.
Really? You said you were German? 
1 Like
Why?
Well, I know what a “Plumpsklo” is (but never had to use one) and I’ve seen very old buildings (mostly farms) where the bathroom had only a bathtub and was at the other side of the house. But these were very old buildings where the owner had to build it that way due to the limitations of the building.
But I’ve never seen the toilet next to the bathroom.
It´s a very common thing in turn of the century houses that have been rebuilt to host several tennants. I grew up in a house like that and it indeed used to be very common. The first flat I lived in on my own also had a room that only had the toilet and the bathroom with the shower was in the room next to it.
I´m also a bit surprised that you have managed to miss flats like this so far.
My dad used to live in a house that was like that in the late 70s/early 80s.
Simple comfort. The bathroom is only occupied if the other person needs to do the same thing as you. If you want to take a bath but someone is on the toilet or vice versa you have less problems that way.
3 Likes
Never seen it. A separate toilet for guests, yes. But not a toilet next to a bathroom.
I haven’t such problems.
But you lived with someone else in your live before, right?
I mean if you grew up without a family, tell me. I´ll add some sad 
music to your story!
3 Likes
Because the other way around is inconvenient. Now sure, I’ve been in American houses where each bedroom has its own private bathroom, but unless you live in a giant mansion I’d much rather have the extra space, not to mention the lesser costs of not having fifty bathrooms with all the fixings when you don’t need them.
In our previous apartment we had a separate bathroom and a toilet. It was much more convenient in that particular aspect than this otherwise much better apartment. Both apartment buildings were constructed in the '70s.
It’s putting the toilet in the bathroom that’s a limitation of the building (e.g., due to plumbing or costs), not vice versa. That’s only any different if you have so much money that you might just as well make every toilet/bathroom be both.
In an apartment the sensible thing is just to split them up, even if they’d be right next to each other. In fact due to plumbing that’s probably the way to go. In a house you probably want a separate toilet on the ground floor, possibly but not necessarily a separate bathroom (toilet optional), and upstairs a bathroom with all-in. Ideally it wouldn’t be that way, but that’s the optimal compromise between cost, space, and convenience.
1 Like
Don´t poop where you bath, my friend.
Our ability to go off-topic is beyond every human understanting 
2 Likes
Yes, but that was never a problem.
Can’t you add this music anyway?
Depends on the bath…