72 Buick Lark which transmission

Low German and regional colloquial language in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania

André Köhncke

Regional differences and changes in the Mecklenburg vocabulary

Abstract: The article focuses on the lexical development of Low German in Mecklenburg over the last 50 years. It compares dialect recordings from the 1960's against new data from 2004–2012. Using lexical examples from different semantic fields (predominantly agriculture), the paper demonstrates the regional variation in the lexicon of the Mecklenburg dialect and shows the continuing disappearance of regional lexical differences as well as an ongoing lexical approximation of the Low German dialect towards the High German standard language. Lexical differences can not only be detected between the old dialect records from the 1960's and the new records from 2004-12, but also within the new records between the language samples of speakers from different generations.

1 Introduction

1.1 Previous research on word geography

The following article focuses on recent and recent developments in the field of Mecklenburg's vocabulary, in particular its geographical differentiation and its successive dissolution as well as the diachronic lexical advergence of the Mecklenburg dialect varieties to the standard German language.

The vocabulary of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania has long been the subject of investigation - both by laypeople and scientists. As early as the 16th century, Rostock professor Nathan Chytraeus, who comes from the Upper German language area, recorded Low German words in his “Nomenclator latinosaxonicus”, which he classified according to subject areas (religion, water and rivers, metals, bodies, diseases, animals, etc.), and from the general to the specific (e.g. animals in general, quadruped animals, horses, blankets and ornaments on horses, etc.).1 Since its first edition in 1582, the book has seen numerous editions in northern Germany (e.g. in Bremen, Hamburg, Lübeck, Lemgo) and has been expanded in some sections, with the ← 71 | 72 → The relationship between the print locations and the vocabulary they contain has not yet been fully clarified.2

In his dissertation, published in 1704, Bernhard Raupach cites both words and entire sentences in order to contrast them with their High German equivalents: “Se schmeten twoͤlff black cats int Water; Miſnicè: You threw twelve black cats into the water. "3 Here, however, it was important to him to emphasize the value of Low German in general.4 The Bützow law professor Ernst Johann Friedrich Mantzel dealt in a dissertation in 1757 and later his "Bützow hours of rest"5 above all “idiotisms” or “provincial words” and therefore dispenses with entries that “can soon be guessed or imitated by someone from Hochteutschen or others”.6 Rather, he concentrates on expressions "to which one with the Mecklenburg spiritual and worldly legal wisdom and history, including economics, has to pay special attention immediately."7 However, he does not go into the lexical differences that existed within the country.8 The following collections of words, which appeared up to the beginning of the 20th century, are more general and do not differentiate between words and geography: Friedrich Frehse and Carl Friedrich Müller record the vocabulary of the works of Fritz Reuter,9 consequently pursued the goal of making his writings understandable to readers who are not able to speak Low German.10 With his dictionary, Sibeth claims to go "deeper [...] into the peculiarities and vocabulary of the Mecklenburg language",11 but at most he occasionally records orthographical deviations between urban and ← 72 | 73 → rural dialect,12 however, does not provide any information as to whether, for example, words with the same meaning are simply to be understood as synonyms or whether they are restricted to a certain region. So he recorded for the High German 'Geleise ‘Läus' and Trad; Whether these words are used indiscriminately or specifically in different regions cannot be deduced from the entries.13

It was not until the 20th century that studies followed that dealt with regionally specific differences in Low German vocabulary: Hugo Jacobs investigated the south-west Mecklenburg region.14 In the foreground of his dissertation are the phonetic changes since the Middle Low German period. Jacobs devotes a small chapter to the lexical differences in his work and particularly shows the differences to Prignitz, but also deals with those within his research area.15 In 1933 Rudolf Blume presented a work that concentrated exclusively on lexicons. H. examined the main part of the former Mecklenburg-Strelitz. He goes into differences within the Strelitz area as well as with the neighboring Schwerin and Brandenburg area.16 In addition to this, Hermann Teuchert devoted himself to the sound level in southern Stargard, but also examined the vocabulary, whereby, like Blume, he traced back the similarities with Brandenburg vocabulary to Lower Franconian settlers.17

In the course of working on the Mecklenburg Dictionary, Teuchert published some word-geographical essays.18 The material for the dictionary is based on Richard Wossidlo's collection of notes, but questionnaires were also sent out in order to be able to more precisely determine the spatial limits of the use of words that have the same meaning.19 The classifications that Teuchert determined on the basis of the evidence collected were later adopted by William Foerste and other authors.20←73 | 74→

One of the questions that this article will investigate is to what extent these results are still valid today, since the material is now over eighty years old and, on the other hand, some statements by Teuchert were already made more precise in a little-noticed short review from 1929 .21

Another aspect that this paper aims to investigate is the current development of vocabulary, i. H. the question of the extent to which the German standard variety affects dialect lexis and how dialect speakers deal with new developments in High German vocabulary and in subject culture. Ulrich Bentzien already pursued this question in 1964, who examined the agricultural sector in particular.22 The work will build on his results.

1.2 Material basis

In order to be able to determine the development of the vocabulary since the time of its survey by Wossidlo and Teuchert and to be able to specify the research results of that time, if necessary, more recent language data must be used. Tape recordings made by Jürgen Gundlach in Mecklenburg in 1962/63 form an important basis for the following explanations. To this end, he interviewed a total of 245 test persons in 61 locations. At least one speaker from the oldest, middle and younger generations was recorded in each location.23 Of course, this means that these documents are also quite old by now. However, there are no newer comprehensive recordings, so that Gundlach's recordings are still indispensable. In addition, most of the speakers who learned Low German as their first language are at least 70 years old today, so that the possibility of recording several generations of dialect speakers, which was still available at the time, was ← 74 | 75 → is often no longer given for new acquisitions. At the beginning of the 1960s, the respondents who can be interviewed mostly belonged to the younger generation, but in the present, despite their advanced age, they are mostly the last to learn Low German as their first language.24 The number of those who were born after 1950 and still have a command of Mecklenburg at their native level, on the other hand, is quite low. Low German is sometimes taught in kindergartens and schools; However, this is a variant that no longer includes the specifics of the local dialects. The state shown in this work represents a snapshot that will soon no longer be up-to-date due to the continuing dwindling number of speakers. The differences outlined will then only be sporadically - if at all - comprehensible in the high German colloquial language.25 Furthermore, Gundlach's recordings make it possible to draw a comparison between the generations of speakers in a place that can hardly be realized today either. The changes in the vocabulary can thus be understood better than if only one generation of speakers per location can be examined.

In my study, recent recordings that were made between 2004 and 2012 serve as a supplement and a basis for comparison with Gundlach's recordings, bringing it up to the present day.26 To distinguish it from Gundlach's “old recordings” from the early 1960s, my own recordings are referred to as “new recordings” in the following text. The demand from the 1960s that the speakers should be "born in the respective recording location, grown up in it and not have been absent from it for long",27 could not always be fulfilled for the new recordings, as some sources have changed their place of residence. A total of 20 test persons from ten locations were recorded, whose geographical location should enable the statements of the older research literature on the word geography of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania to be checked. These places are in ← 75 | 76 → mainly in today's Ludwigslust-Parchim district or the former GDR districts of Schwerin-Land (Banzkow, Demen, Rastow, Sukow, Tramm), Parchim (Kossebade) and Ludwigslust (Menkendorf). In order to provide a view of the wider environment of the conditions in central Mecklenburg, individual locations further away were also included in the analysis (e.g. Bützow, Rostock, Wismar).

The majority of my test subjects were born and raised at the respective admission location. This is especially true for the records from Demen, Kossebade, Tramm and Menkendorf. The places Bützow, Rastow, Rostock, Banzkow and Wismar were also recorded, but restrictions apply here: The speaker from Bützow now lives in Demen, the Wismar in Crivitz, the two people recorded in Rostock grew up and speak in Gnoien and Bad Doberan therefore also not the Rostock dialect, the Rastower speaker originally comes from Goldenstädt, which is close to the recording location, and the Banzkower has lived in Sukow for fifty years, where his wife, who is also recorded, comes from. This means that the usual local dialect cannot be recorded in all cases, but the change of location allows statements to be made about the extent to which the relocations have influenced these test subjects in their speech behavior. In addition to the recordings mentioned, two people were recorded who live on the western border of the Mecklenburg dialect area, one of which comes from the Lübeck district of Schlutup and has also spent her entire life there, the other lives in Woltersdorf in Lower Saxony (Duchy of Lauenburg) and in grew up close to the Mecklenburg border.

The Gundlach recordings contain a High German "Fixed Text" (FT), which the speakers had to translate into their local dialect, as well as a "Free Story" (FE), in which Low German was freely spoken with the interviewer. In addition, Gundlach asked for sentences for the Mecklenburg dictionary, which differed from region to region.28 The same procedure was followed for the new recordings in order to ensure uniformity, that is, after a free conversation in Low German, the test subjects were asked to translate the same text and dictionary sentences as Gundlach's test subjects a good 40 years ago. ← 76 | 77 →

2. Regional differences in word usage

2.1 Word-geographical internal classifications of Mecklenburg

For the dialect-geographical internal structure of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, research apart from phonetic differences29 also consulted the lexicon. However, not all of the words usually used as a basis can be heard on the recordings from the 1960s, so a selection is made here that enables comparisons between the various time stages. It must be checked whether the current information in the specialist literature is still valid.

For Dieter Stellmacher, Mecklenburg is characterized by a “north-south contrast, which is defined by the Wittenburg-Crivitz-Goldberg-Friedland line. It separates the northern Kütik, Tram, Trad, Arnbier from the southern Harrik, Sprat, Lois, Austkost 'Hederich, Ladder rung, Wagenspur, Erntefest'. "30 On the new recordings and further conversations, these words were specifically asked for or they formed e.g. Sometimes the topic of conversation (e.g. the harvest festival), on Gundlach's old recordings they were queried or used at least in some places.

Teuchert, on the other hand, distinguishes between a “west-east divide”, which includes the words Wädik / Arpel 'Enterich' and Äwer / Bir 'Eber', and the 'North-South contrast' identified by Stellmacher, including, in addition to 'Kütik Ackersenf, sinapis arvensis / Haddik, Harrik Hederich, raphanistrum arvense "31 and "Trad’ / Leus ’Wagenspur, Geleise, Tram / Sprat ladder rung" also belonged to "Ribbon / rope straw rope to tie the straw bundle".32 Hans Joachim Gernentz also provides ← 77 | 78 → “- especially clear in the vocabulary - differences between the north and the south of the dialect area”, whereby he adopts the examples already mentioned by Teuchert.33 The group of places in Mecklenburg recorded in the new recordings is chosen so that they are traversed by both the word geographic north-south isoglosses and the west-east contrasts mentioned, which the older dialect geography had determined.

2.1.1 Harvest

First of all, the geographical north-south contrast is to be examined. The examples are the same except for one pair of words that only mentions wheelwright, namely the name for the harvest festival. Since the harvest played a major role in a rural region like Mecklenburg, the name for it should also be the subject of investigation. The two compounds Arnbier and Austkost cited by Stellmacher differ in both terms, so the defining word for “harvest” is Arn in the north and Aust in the south. The word was queried using the specified sentences for the Mecklenburg dictionary. The test subjects almost exclusively use Aust on the new recordings. Only the Rastower and Banzkower speakers say Oorn.34 It should be noted that the test person from Banzkow has been living in the neighboring village of Sukow to the northeast for over fifty years. But his wife and mother-in-law both say Aust. He is therefore also unsure when the conversation is asked again and weighs up: “Oorn or Aust. Now go inside Aust. Yes, un in de, inne Oorn. Yes. ”Finally he decides on the word Oorn, which he has already recited in the translated sentences. The uncertainty is therefore probably due to the move. Nevertheless, he does not seem to have taken over the word used in Sukow in full. This evidence already shows that the distribution of the determinant does not correspond to the isogloss specified by Stellmacher, because Demen, for example, is north of the line, but there the test persons still use the Austro-Hungarian region that Stellmacher found in the south. On the old recordings, this word also dominates over a large area. There is ← 78 | 79 → exclusively in the east and the center of Mecklenburg. Oorn can only be heard in the west on the recordings from 1962/63. The most easterly places here are Züsow, Pinnow and Banzkow, which was later recorded. However, the speakers fluctuate between the two terms. This is also the case in many other recording locations even further to the west. A representative Gundlachs from Hoben should be mentioned here, who changes again and again in free conversation: “Un nåhher tau de Aust, tau de Oorn, because säd 'wi:' Oh, nu låt all een poor Dååg, eight Dååg, then go wedder bi de Aust, because the fishing is wedder vörbi. '”Even in the westernmost Mecklenburg locations of Selmsdorf, Lüttow and Bennin, Aust can also be identified in addition to Oorn. Sometimes the individual speakers switch between the two words, sometimes one speaker Aust and the other Oorn prefer to be in the same place. Oorn is used exclusively in the western border towns of Schlagsdorf and Zweedorf, and also in Möllin and Woez. It predominates in Selmsdorf, Hoben, Alt Meteln and Pinnow, while Aust dominates in Lüttow, Bennin and Pritzier. In the southwest, on the other hand, only Aust can be heard in the old recordings. H. in Alt Jabel, Glaisin, Eldena, Lüblow and Prislich.The Menkendorfer test persons also use this word on the recordings made in 2012. The speakers in the Holstein and Lauenburg towns of Schlutup and Woltersdorf, which border on Mecklenburg, say Oorn in the new recordings. In Sumte, which was also recorded by Gundlach because it belonged to the GDR at the time, Aust dominates, although Oorn also occurs.

While the gender of Oorn is always feminine, the Mecklenburg dictionary for Aust states that “today it is often f [eminine]. used, probably based on Oorn, […], otherwise mostly m [askulin] ”.35 The feminine predominates on the old recordings. However, there is a spatial distribution for both genera: The masculine can be traced almost exclusively in places in Mecklenburg-Strelitz. In Klein Trebbow, Triepkendorf and Peetsch all test persons translate “after the harvest” with “nåh den Aust”, in Granzin and Röbel, which is the only place outside the old Stargarder Land, it outweighs feminine “nåh de Aust”, in Warlin , Cammin and Weisdin dominate this form over the masculine. This distribution could be related to the spread of the word Aust: Since it has displaced Oorn from the south-east and is now also used in the west, the speakers have apparently adopted the word, but not its gender. In ← 79 | 80 → Mecklenburg-Strelitz, where it has been used for a long time, the original masculine word has been retained.

For the word “harvest” it can thus be stated: Even in the 1960s, a West-East contrast could be made out between the two terms, but this was already visibly disappearing at that time. Aust dominates the study area both on the old recordings and on the more recent surveys; Oorn is only still in use in the west of Mecklenburg, so that this part of the country stands out from the rest of the geographical terms. In the more recent records this word is only used by a speaker from Banzkow. In Menkendorf, which is the westernmost place of the more recent surveys, Aust is already valid, although the test subjects from Eldena, which is located in the neighborhood, also used this word exclusively as early as the 1960s. Both places are located on the southernmost grid square of the Gundlach elevation and are set apart from the more northerly places z. B. also in the pronunciation of “mow” and “ten”.36 In the entire West, however, Aust was already common in the 1960s. The dominant gender for Oorn and Aust is the feminine. A masculine form only exists for Aust, which in turn can only be heard in Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Röbel.

2.1.2 Harvest Festival

It would be only logical that the distribution of Aust and Oorn should also apply to the harvest festival. It turns out, however, that the qualifier Oorn- is more common than the simplex. On the old recordings it can be heard in Züsow, Pinnow, Zahrensdorf and Mestlin, on the newer ones in Banzkow Demen and Kossebade, that is, it also occurs in places west of Schwerin, which is not the case with the Simplex “Oorn” was the case. In this area there is still a coexistence of Aust 'harvest' and Oornbier 'harvest festival'. The easternmost village in which the first link Oorn- can be detected is on the old recordings Satow, which is east of the Plauer See. In the places mentioned above, however, it only occurs in this one word, other compound words with 'harvest' as a defining word are formed with Aust. This is the name of the 'potato harvest' in Demen Tüffelaust. The determinant in 'Harvest ← 80 | 81 → solid ‘is frozen and no longer productive - in stark contrast to the West, where Oorn is still used for word formations.

In the north of Mecklenburg, Aust- is already occupied further west and comes across as Austbier in Retschow and Letschow. In the east the basic word changes and is in Jördenstorf, Bansow, Nossentiner Hütte, Carolinenhof and Peetsch Austköst. In the other Strelitz towns as well as Kölzow and Eldena, the speakers already use the High German word harvest festival on the old recordings. With the exception of Eldena, no word is given for the harvest festival in the southwest. In Menkendorf, the test person states that they say Harvest Festival or Austfest, although he is also familiar with Oornbier, but that is not said in the village.37

Based on the findings, it can be determined that there is no north-south contrast at the 'Harvest Festival', as Oornbier can also be found in northern places, e.g. B. in the 1960s in Welzin, Züsow, Zahrensdorf and still today in Demen, while in southeastern Peetsch Austköst is common. Rather, as with Aust / Oorn, a difference between East and West can be made out, as is already shown - albeit only very roughly - on a map in the Mecklenburg dictionary.38 The more recent findings show a change from Oornbier to Austbier, which eventually changes to Ausköst, followed by OornbierAustköst in the south.39 The variant Oornklaatsch, which is given as a scattered evidence in the north on the said map of the Mecklenburg dictionary, could no longer be heard on any of the old and new recordings.

2.1.3 Hederich, ladder rung and straw band

No precise information on the regional distribution can be given about the other words mentioned in the literature, as these were only queried in a few localities and rarely used in free conversation: High German Hederich (field mustard, field radish) appears in the majority of the recording locations Gundlachs as Harrick , the umlaut form Härrick can be heard in the southwestern towns of Alt Jabel, Glaisin and Eldena. The subjects on ← 81 | 82 → Some of the new recordings no longer know the word and either use other names (e.g. in Demen Quäck and Unkruut) or use the word from the High German original Hederich. In Kossebade the word is Harrick, in Demen this word was only known on request, in Menkendorf the speaker uses Härrick as in the neighboring villages recorded on the old recordings. The word Kütik, which according to Stellmacher is used north of the Crivitz-Goldberg line for Hederich, was completely unknown in Demen, north of it; the only recent evidence for this word comes from a speaker from Rostock, who, however, originally comes from Bad Doberan. The old dialectal lexemes Kütik and Harrick / Härrick seem to have continued to disappear from the Mecklenburg vocabulary since Gundlach's survey, and the regional differences are beginning to blur here as well.

The ladder rung was only queried on the old photographs in the east of Mecklenburg, so only limited statements can be made for the rest of the study area. In Bansow, Bristow, Brudersdorf and Jördenstorf, the test subjects Gundlachs translate the word with Leddertråm or -trån. The speakers in Carolinenhof to the south vary, here an older woman uses Tråm, but another test person uses Ledderspråt. The latter applies exclusively in Mecklenburg-Strelitz and in the southern parts of East Mecklenburg. In addition, younger speakers in particular used the half-high German Ledderspross as early as the 1960s. B. in Bansow, Bristow, Carolinenhof, Granzin, Nossentiner Hütte, Peetsch, Triepkendorf and Weisdin. This designation displaces both northern Tråm and southern Mecklenburg Språt. This tendency continues on the new recordings: In Demen, Kossebade and Rastow this form is used exclusively, whereby Språt is at least still known. The purely Low German name can still be heard in Menkendorf and Tramm. There is no longer any evidence of Tråm in the new recordings, even in the northern sub-regions. The Språt, which is closer to High German (see rung) seems to be more resistant to degradation than Tråm.

About the distribution of Trad / Läus' 'Geleise, Wagenspur' and ribbon / rope (for tying straw), for which the earlier word geography assumed a north-south spatial division, hardly any more current statements can be made, since these words are on the recordings 1960s were not queried. Läus ‘can not be heard on any of the new recordings, the spokesman from Rastrow, which is located far south, says Trad. This name also prevails in Demen and Kossebade. In addition to the low density of documents, there is a second difficulty with tape / rope, as the test persons rely on the new ← 82 | 83 → Recordings use both terms, but they are obviously not synonyms. They use rope to show that the sheaves were tied with straws, and later on the artificial ribbon was used for this. A semantic differentiation has evidently occurred here between the formerly region-specific words.

In spite of the sometimes thin evidence, it can be said that the “north-south contrast” described by Stellmacher for Ornbier / Austköst cannot be empirically confirmed. For the other words in Stellmacher's north-south dimension, this geographical line is at least too imprecise for today's conditions, as the northern Kütik and Tråm are unknown in Demen to the north and the terms given for the south still apply there instead. Tråd, located north of the Isogloss, is still used in the much more southerly villages of Rastow or Kossebade. My new recordings indicate that with all of the mentioned reference words for a geographical “North-South contrast”, a process of degradation has started, with which the old dialectal lexemes are progressively falling out of use.

2.2 Animal and plant names

2.2.1 Drake and Boar

According to Teuchert, there is also a "west-east divide" in Mecklenburg, for which he among other things. gives different names for the drake. Therefore, the distribution of the Low German equivalents Wädik and Arpel will be examined in the following, but also the regional breakdown of other animal and plant names will be discussed.

The western name Wädik can still be heard on Gundlach's old recordings in the western Mecklenburg towns of Alt Meteln, Boldela, Groß Lantow, Hoben, Möllin, Warnow and Zahrensdorf; in Boldela, Groß Lantow and Lüblow it also appears as Wäding. Arpel and drake dominate in the east, but can also be detected in the center of the country. High German drake in particular penetrates further and further west, as the recordings from the 1960s already show, as the word was already used in Selmsdorf, Möllin, Alt Jabel, Prislich, Warnow and Zahrensdorf at that time. On the new recordings since 2004, Erpel can be heard almost exclusively in the entire study area. In Kossebade, Wädik is still known upon request and, according to reports, was still used by the parents of the two speakers in the 1960s, in Tramm the older speaker Erpel zu Wäding corrects. In Demen only drake applies, but Wädik is completely unknown, one speaker even says, ← 83 | 84 → that it is not Mecklenburg. Already at the end of the 19th century in the Waren area, Wossidlo established that this name was not known to some sources.40 He also stated that “[b] both names [d. H. Wädik and Arpel, A. K.] go mixed up in the area Lübz-Parchim-Crivitz, and Dargun-Gnoien-Laage-Tessin-Rostock ”.41 This also explains why Wädik is still known in Kossebade, but not in Demen. Apparently, Erpel has been in use for a long time in the latter town.

In the southwest of Mecklenburg the drake is mainly called Wänker according to the Mecklenburg dictionary.42 According to Gundlach's photographs, this designation is still valid in the southwest in Alt Jabel, Eldena, Menkendorf, Glaisin and Prislich, although Erpel penetrated here as early as the 1960s, as mentioned above. The speakers in the north-westerly recording locations of Schlagsdorf and Selmsdorf use the form Wäät, shortened from Wädik. This also applies to the Sumte outside of Mecklenburg. Drake can be heard in the new recordings in Schlutup in Holstein, the Woltersdorf narrator is already using drakes.

There is no longer a clear west-east distribution of Wädik / Erpel or Arpel. The corresponding map in the Mecklenburg dictionary is therefore no longer up-to-date.43 However, even at the time when the dictionary was created, there was apparently no strict regional distinction, because on the map mentioned a closed Wädik area is shown, the eastern border of which extends over Laage and Güstrow, although there are still scattered evidence for the eastern Arpel territory the designation Wädik were recorded. On the other hand, Wossidlo has already determined that both forms are mixed up in some areas within the western Wädik area, so that the map should at least show scattered evidence for Arpel there as well.

The east-west difference between Bir and Äwer 'Eber' cited by Teuchert is also disappearing noticeably. The word was only queried in the southwest on the old photos, but the new photos show the tendency to break down the east-west contrast. According to the map in the Mecklenburg dictionary, the majority of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania is ← 84 | 85 → Bir,44 in the west of Mecklenburg Bir and Äwer side by side, in the south-west from the area around Lübenheen to Röbel the equivalent of Kemp.45 The latter word can still be heard in Alt Jabel, Eldena, Glaisin, Lüblow, Marnitz and Prislich in the old recordings, but only from the older speakers. The younger ones use Äwer, which is closer to the standard language, as early as the 1960s. This designation already dominates on the new recordings. Both speakers prefer it in Tramm, but at least the older one still knows Kemp. In Demen and Kossebade all speakers translate “Eber” with Äwer, although Bir is still known to everyone. The speaker from Wismar and the Rostock native from Gnoien only know Äwer. Only two test persons did not use this word: In the southwest of Menkendorf, the speaker used Kemp, the Rostock Bir from Bad Doberan. According to the Mecklenburg dictionary, Bir, which is dominant in the study area, is now largely only available in passive vocabulary, at least in the Crivitz-Parchim area, i.e. the western Äwer is also gaining ground in the eastern regions of Mecklenburg and is displacing the other two terms Bir and Kemp.

2.2.2 Ant, frog / toad and earthworm

Balancing tendencies can also be identified for the names for ant, frog / toad and earthworm, although there is still a fairly large variety of shapes here, which will be documented in the following.