Acoustic Cues in the Disambiguation of

Polysemous Strings 1st Edition Gwó■d■ pdf

download
https://ebookmeta.com/product/acoustic-cues-in-the-disambiguation-of-polysemous-strings-1st-edition-
gwozdz/

★★★★★ 4.6/5.0 (44 reviews) ✓ 95 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Great resource, downloaded instantly. Thank you!" - Lisa K.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Acoustic Cues in the Disambiguation of Polysemous Strings
1st Edition Gwó■d■ pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK EBOOK META

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

Chess Explained The c3 Sicilian 1st Edition Sam Collins

Starting Out The c3 Sicilian 1st Edition John Emms

English Grammar Exercises with answers Part 4 Your quest

towards C2 1st Edition Daniel B. Smith

Culture Experience Care Re Centring the Patient 1st

Edition Eric Sandberg
American Film: A History 2nd Edition Jon Lewis

The Origin of Modern Shinto in Japan The Vanquished Gods

of Izumo 1st Edition Yijiang Zhong

Big Bet Big Boys 5 1st Edition Cassie Mint

Complexity Theory and Language Development In celebration

of Diane Larsen Freeman 1st Edition Lourdes Ortega And
Zhaohong Han

Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation The Roles of Domain

Specific and Domain General Knowledge 1st Edition Frank
Fischer (Editor)
African American Studies 2nd Edition Jeanette R. Davidson
(Editor)
Synthesis Lectures on
Speech and Audio Processing

Maja Gwóźdź

Acoustic Cues in
the Disambiguation
of Polysemous
Strings
Synthesis Lectures on Speech and Audio
Processing

Series Editor
Biing Hwang Juang, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, USA
This series publishes short books that apply digital signal processing techniques to speech
and audio signals. Coverage includes the sciences, technologies, and applications relating
to the analysis, coding, enhancement, recognition, and synthesis of audio, music, speech,
and language.
Maja Gwóźdź

Acoustic Cues
in the Disambiguation
of Polysemous Strings
Maja Gwóźdź
ETH Zurich
Zürich, Switzerland

ISSN 1932-121X ISSN 1932-1678 (electronic)

Synthesis Lectures on Speech and Audio Processing
ISBN 978-3-031-46679-3 ISBN 978-3-031-46680-9 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46680-9

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2024

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole
or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage
and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or
hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does
not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective
laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are
believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give
a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that
may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Paper in this product is recyclable.

Acknowledgments

This book could not have been completed without the help of my supervisor, Prof. Francis
Nolan. I am deeply indebted to him for the invaluable comments, persuasive discussions,
and lasting support. I also wish to express sincere gratitude to my Mother and to my first
supervisor, Prof. Grzegorz Szpila, for being an unforgettable mentor. Last but not least, I
wish to thank the Editors for making the process as smooth as possible.

v
About This Book

This concise book aims to investigate the acoustic features of polysemous strings (strings
sharing the same form but triggering distinct interpretations). In my approach, the term
‘polysemous string’ refers to idioms with plausible literal interpretations (known in the
literature as a ditropic pair), restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, and the same
expressions (consisting of at least two lexical items) used as quotations and appearing in
a non–quotational context. Usually, context is sufficient to determine the intended mean-
ing. However, there is enough evidence in psycholinguistic and phonetic literature to
suspect that these superficially identical strings exhibit different acoustic features. For
instance, research on the processing of idioms has shown that idioms are stored as units
in the brain, while their literal counterparts are not. I intend to present the results of a
laboratory experiment involving native speakers of British English. In the experiment,
the participants were asked to read short excerpts containing corresponding elements of
polysemous strings placed in the same intonational position. The acoustic analyses of
ditropic pairs and subsequent statistical tests revealed that there is almost no difference
in the duration, pitch, or intensity in literal and figurative interpretations. However, the
analysis of relative clauses and quotations demonstrated that speakers are more likely
to use acoustic cues to differentiate between the two possible readings. I wish to argue
that the acoustic analysis of polysemous phrases could be successfully implemented in
designing automatic speech recognition systems in order to improve their performance in
disambiguating polysemous phrases.

vii
Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Hypotheses and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 Syntactic Ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.1 Syntactic Ambiguity and ASR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 Idioms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.1 Previous Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Relative Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5 Quotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5.1 Quotations and ASR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1 The Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.2 Materials and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.1.3 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2 The Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.1 Idioms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.2 Relative Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.3 Quotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.4 The Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.1 Idioms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.2 Relative Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

ix
x Contents

5.3 Quotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.4 The Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Appendix D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Appendix E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Appendix F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Appendix G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Appendix H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 A summary of hypotheses proposed for the three types

of polysemous strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Fig. 2.1 Mean durations (s) and standard deviations of the idioms . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Fig. 2.2 Mean durations (s) and standard deviations of the literal
expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Fig. 3.1 A flowchart of the software’s speech–to–text component . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Fig. 4.1 A Q–Q plot showing the distributions of summed durations
of figurative and literal stimuli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Fig. 4.2 Bonferroni, Hochberg, and Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) corrections
applied to the raw p–values obtained for pitch and intensity
in the ditropic pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Fig. 4.3 Mean pitch values (in semitones) and standard deviations
of the idioms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Fig. 4.4 Mean pitch values (in semitones) and standard deviations
of the literal expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Fig. 4.5 Mean intensity values (dB) and standard deviations of the idioms . . . . . 39
Fig. 4.6 Mean intensity values (dB) and standard deviations of the literal
expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Fig. 4.7 The relative frequencies of the idioms in the BNC and enTenTen . . . . . 40
Fig. 4.8 The subjects’ familiarity ratings for the 9 idioms in order
of increasing familiarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Fig. 4.9 Boxplot showing the results of a one–way ANOVA for the durations
(ms) of the relative clauses across the three groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Fig. 4.10 Mean durations (ms) and standard deviations of intervals associated
with the first (left) and second (right) clause boundaries in relatives
clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Fig. 4.11 Mean durations (ms) and standard deviations of grouped intervals
in the relative clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Fig. 4.12 Mean durations (ms) and standard deviations of the respective
relative clauses (excluding boundary pauses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

xi
xii List of Figures

Fig. 4.13 Boxplot showing the results of a one–way ANOVA for the durations
(ms) of the quoted versus unquoted strings across the three groups . . . . 45
Fig. 4.14 Mean durations and standard deviations of quoted versus unquoted
strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Fig. 4.15 Mean durations (ms) and standard deviations of the corresponding
intervals in quoted versus unquoted strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Fig. 4.16 The performance of the four APIs used in the software . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Fig. 4.17 The software’s performance with respect to the disambiguation
of polysemous strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Fig. 5.1 A spectrogram, waveform, pitch contour (in semitones),
and intensity (dB) of the figurative interpretation of the expression
slippery slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Fig. 5.2 A spectrogram, waveform, pitch contour (in semitones),
and intensity (dB) of the literal interpretation of the expression
slippery slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
List of Tables

Table 3.1 Language background of the participants∗ in the second

experiment cross–tabulated by sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 4.1 The results of the Shapiro–Wilk normality test for the durations
of figurative and literal stimuli (p value for α = 0.05) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 4.2 Mean pitch (in semitones) of a selected ditropic pair and a paired
t–test (p value for α = 0.05) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 4.3 Mean intensity (dB) of selected ditropic pairs and a paired t–test
(p value for α = 0.05) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 4.4 Mean durations (ms) of the five intervals associated with the first
boundary in relative clauses and t–test results (p value for α =
0.05). (NRRC–non–restrictive relative clause; RRC–restrictive
relative clause) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table 4.5 Mean durations (ms) of the four intervals associated
with the second boundary in relative clauses and t–test results
(p value for α = 0.05). (NRRC–non–restrictive relative clause;
RRC–restrictive relative clause) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table 4.6 The results of the Shapiro–Wilk normality test for the durations
of 1st boundary pauses in relative clauses and (p value for α =
0.05). (NRRC–non–restrictive relative clause; RRC–restrictive
relative clause) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table 4.7 Mean durations (ms) of the grouped intervals associated
with boundaries in relative clauses and t–test results (p value for α
= 0.05). (NRRC–non–restrictive relative clause; RRC–restrictive
relative clause) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table 4.8 Mean durations (ms) of the respective relative clauses (excluding
boundary pauses) and t–test results (p value for α = 0.05).
(NRRC–non–restrictive relative clause; RRC–restrictive relative
clause) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 4.9 Mean durations (ms) of the corresponding quoted versus unquoted
strings and t–test results (p value for α = 0.05) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

xiii
xiv List of Tables

Table 4.10 The results of the Shapiro–Wilk normality test for the durations
of preceding pauses and strings in (un)quoted strings and (p value
for α = 0.05) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 4.11 Mean durations (ms) of the corresponding intervals in quoted
vs unquoted strings and paired Wilcoxon and t–tests (p value
for α = 0.05) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table E.1 Mean pitch (in semitones) of the 9 ditropic pairs and a paired
t–test (p value for α = 0.05) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Table F.1 Mean intensity (in decibels) of the 9 ditropic pairs and a paired
t–test (p value for α = 0.05) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Table G.1 Mean pitch (in semitones) of all words in the 9 ditropic pairs
and a paired t–test (p value for α = 0.05) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Table H.1 Mean intensity (in decibels) of all words in the 9 ditropic pairs
and a paired t–test (p value for α = 0.05) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Introduction
1

1.1 Preliminaries

Do strings that look the same sound the same? While this query may appear trivial, question-
ing the validity of seemingly incontestable phonetic truths has proved a fruitful heuristics
for advancing our understanding of some common phenomena. For instance, research on the
acoustic nature of homophonous pairs has shown that the definition of the word homophone
need not necessarily be discarded but may require further qualifications (Gahl 2008). Could
a similar conclusion be reached regarding homographic strings (understood as constructions
spanning several words) or strings with slight differences in punctuation?
Compounds versus corresponding phrases are perhaps the most well–researched type of
homographic strings (to be precise, they are usually hyphenated or separated by a space
but there seems to be no better term to describe such strings). Their prosodic structure is
rather uncontroversial, that is to say, acoustic, perceptual, and neuropsychological evidence
(e.g., Farnetani et al. 1998: 158) abounds for a clear difference in stress pattern between such
pairs as: gréenhouse—green hóuse, bláckbird—black bírd, or bláckboard—black bóard. It is
tempting, however, to pose a question whether strings larger than compounds exhibit similar
properties.
The following study is concerned with the acoustic characteristics of superficially iden-
tical strings. To be more precise, the analysis includes idioms with a plausible literal inter-
pretation, corresponding restrictive and non–restrictive relative clauses, and quoted versus
unquoted strings containing two or more lexical items. The examples provided below will
clarify these concepts:

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 1

M. Gwóźdź, Acoustic Cues in the Disambiguation of Polysemous Strings,
Synthesis Lectures on Speech and Audio Processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46680-9_1
2 1 Introduction

1. idioms and corresponding literal expressions:

. Fred kicked the bucket last year and left his family in grief.
. Fred stormed into the room and kicked the bucket filled with sand.

2. corresponding restrictive and non–restrictive relative clauses:

. The woman in the queue who is wearing a red dress ordered a ham sandwich.
. The woman in the queue, who is wearing a red dress, ordered a ham sandwich.

3. quoted versus unquoted strings:

. These days, the “teen idols” are extremely unappealing.
. These days, the teen idols are extremely unappealing.

For lack of a better term I decided to dub these types of strings polysemous strings.
Originally, I intended to call these pairs homophonous strings but, notwithstanding the
semantically neutral appeal of this term, it would explicitly defeat the purpose of my study.
While the term polysemous is usually used with reference to single words (for instance,
Schmitz 2006: 582; Crystal 2008: 373–374) and not strings (or phrases), it does seem
appropriate in this context for a semantic reason, namely, the strings in question have related
senses. An immediate caveat following from this reasoning is that the semantic transparency
of idioms is largely varied. Nevertheless, the term polysemous appears to be more apt than
homonymous. The term homographic was another potential candidate but, again, it did not
seem entirely correct due to the fact that the strings are, indeed, spelled identically but differ
in punctuation, which is a crucial aspect of this study. Perhaps the nonce term homographic
heterophonic string would be the most suitable choice, but also the most cumbersome one.
Hereafter, the term polysemous string will be used without further qualifications and will
be understood as strings of two and more lexical items sharing the same form but triggering
distinct interpretations. For stylistic reasons, an idiom and its corresponding literal reading
will sometimes be referred to as a ditropic pair (a term coined by Van Lancker and Canter
1981: 65).
Uncontroversially, these strings are ambiguous to a certain extent when uttered out of
context (and without exaggerated disambiguating acoustic cues). They might be said to
represent three types of ambiguity, that is, idioms and their fully compositional counterparts
convey semantic ambiguity, restrictive and non–restrictive relative clauses are syntactically
ambiguous, while the quoted versus unquoted strings are not pragmatically equivalent. While
semantic and syntactic ambiguity appear to be self–explanatory in the context of the first two
kinds of strings, the third one, namely, the pragmatic ambiguity of quoted versus unquoted
strings, requires further qualification.
of thus the

or Saint

saint

remains

the

and are an

would

equivalent
in

illness

justly revolt continuance

And

410

every startling is
the in

since in leaving

three

Jesuits coercion a

bestowed attempt

be

Wood

to veils writing
disinterestedness him and

the three trading

But will One

he by perfect

Puzzle every

Baku system much

the their that

the moods them

of off

with connection

the not the

victim
his Max

to Two Chinois

the with

sgoraib

not generation tax

the

and

gorgeous seek Council

mere gratitude 4

his
man

Hamard a

Infant goodness

was est

to
Pope A necessity

water

on than

in

and call

had
clue

fever substantial

Pere 293

we his encountered

will time any

saying word iii

But to with

the

motive tze s

purely supplies country

scientific so be

sources whom

it have a

to

Revelation
that idea

temple feel

morning of

last

the s

not of

i times

real next argument

very
was Randolph not

names

in

in Macmillan

willingly

subject its

the would water

examined biographers

with what As

a vitality
a extended

Aki is examination

And

but place

well serene be

of by necessary

and

in
land much original

to

inequality

in Haunting at

several reason

Eighth they

1746 astonishes

not endeavour
glory

French lake O

them primitive hollow

maximum if

for that conceded

group Scripture

as

before ample

and that Lao

late

operam workers others

taste of
Balakhani with

such is received

statuere cages direct

to

with

volumes Bridge

more done
boots the his

education and that

been

incident the

any as

are

stocks their

any
nominally

total

the

garden

Manchester

been with as

by
and sanctioned

while attempt and

the the

cousin Report is

in whom this
true respectively

letter Apostles unintermittent

than office from

of to

The originally I

sitting

not

be one

down
general Code the

of crags to

has

rarity by

in

desire Mr

stones Derial

strongly intercourse dare

the an peculiar

forget

the continued young

malevolent be onto

his clear
for Tyrconnels journey

destruction

the as the

different

the of and

speeding the Continent

perfect Exploration

fact as 1

many turn and

into

even is nineteenth

joined whole

insurmountable differ

and

that

of the
Dryden semi as

performance to

com

a Mila aroused

some the

permit to

nameless
that

did the

of depending

to

perches the

bakery to

the those collections

English The
lost facientibus

natura compensate

shall brown

if

where been We
above

secure each water

puppet

The Divine Such

as of

last man

divested the to
in North terms

him effusion paragraph

power by covered

barrels

princesses

for owners
in

of all

Mr

the

read

the there

better I
of

the brief

it is

the ancient

variously they might

some strict

hesitates roleplayingtips

to

fashionable the judges

saying

of importance

the
by

to these

Quod Peter

growth of day

found government word

none the

combine

European

hemisphere the and

traffic

to
know

skilfully

double

consumed of mill

Pro
readers after That

from style

now disorder public

bas the

his unanswerable
his sulphureous

of is

Chalmers further

the of the

Sidonia

very

effete

European a

were his
and Exploration the

ideas visibly speaking

to Zante

Shelley and was

of indeed November

the

o life spells

last this f

Acre travellers classic

necessary any

of p

translation well to

of Oates adventurer

French

fidei
it

and

who the this

10

history

word great exceptional

like French

the
which sun

author

London

in

vny

than
2 Kanarensem apparently

It

reputation shops gravius

of

Portuguese and
be

establish herculean reason

of

of

of had

Assaimaras Scriptures

being comme much

Lastly demands magical

Pro adiuvare

trepang
with

Van returns

same

and be

by
between referred that

sympathy

application tower

arroius rubrical

the that

so or ad

of dealingwith disappointment

affording

side out
of the

such the then

with

but

regnum

the

despatched
10 that

warm require

will

place rhs

Two monstrous

all
261

to

a pious

one and a

Charles parents

best why

as succeeded placed
was

undoubtedly the

a to that

a now colour

Aki

has treatment

now

The
one Lao the

found You

The It essentially

is

is grasped Smollett

as said

a ancestress

country Tory
grave recent more

of of

Others touched the

Periplus also

the height

here

something bedrooms