Constraints in Discourse 172nd Edition Anton Benz

(Ed.) instant access 2025

Available on ebookultra.com
https://ebookultra.com/download/constraints-in-discourse-172nd-
edition-anton-benz-ed/

★★★★★
4.6 out of 5.0 (99 reviews )

Get PDF Instantly

Constraints in Discourse 172nd Edition Anton Benz (Ed.)

EBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 ACADEMIC EDITION – LIMITED RELEASE

Available Instantly Access Library

 We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebookultra.com
to discover even more!

Wilhelm Reich in Hell Robert Anton Wilson

https://ebookultra.com/download/wilhelm-reich-in-hell-robert-anton-
wilson/

Conversion to Islam in the Balkans Anton Minkov

https://ebookultra.com/download/conversion-to-islam-in-the-balkans-
anton-minkov/

Uncle Vanya Anton Chekhov

https://ebookultra.com/download/uncle-vanya-anton-chekhov/

Advances in Insect Physiology Vol 29 1st Edition Peter

Evans

https://ebookultra.com/download/advances-in-insect-physiology-
vol-29-1st-edition-peter-evans/
Calculus 10th Edition Howard Anton

https://ebookultra.com/download/calculus-10th-edition-howard-anton/

Lenin as Philosopher Anton Pannekoek

https://ebookultra.com/download/lenin-as-philosopher-anton-pannekoek/

Immunogenetics 1st Edition Anton W. Langerak

https://ebookultra.com/download/immunogenetics-1st-edition-anton-w-
langerak/

Anton Chekhov 1st Edition Rose Whyman

https://ebookultra.com/download/anton-chekhov-1st-edition-rose-whyman/

Adobe InDesign Classroom in a Book 2022 release 1st

Edition Kelly Anton

https://ebookultra.com/download/adobe-indesign-classroom-in-a-
book-2022-release-1st-edition-kelly-anton/
Constraints in Discourse
Pragmatics & Beyond New Series (P&BNS)
Pragmatics & Beyond New Series is a continuation of Pragmatics & Beyond and
its Companion Series. The New Series offers a selection of high quality work
covering the full richness of Pragmatics as an interdisciplinary field, within
language sciences.

Editor
Andreas H. Jucker
University of Zurich, English Department
Plattenstrasse 47, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland
e-mail: [email protected]

Associate Editors
Jacob L. Mey Herman Parret Jef Verschueren
University of Southern Belgian National Science Belgian National Science
Denmark Foundation, Universities of Foundation,
Louvain and Antwerp University of Antwerp

Editorial Board
Shoshana Blum-Kulka Susan C. Herring Emanuel A. Schegloff
Hebrew University of Indiana University University of California at Los
Jerusalem Angeles
Masako K. Hiraga
Jean Caron St.Paul’s (Rikkyo) University Deborah Schiffrin
Université de Poitiers Georgetown University
David Holdcroft
Robyn Carston University of Leeds Paul Osamu Takahara
University College London Kobe City University of
Sachiko Ide
Foreign Studies
Bruce Fraser Japan Women’s University
Boston University
Catherine Kerbrat- Sandra A. Thompson
University of California at
Thorstein Fretheim Orecchioni
Santa Barbara
University of Trondheim University of Lyon 2
John C. Heritage Claudia de Lemos Teun A. van Dijk
Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona
University of California at Los University of Campinas, Brazil
Angeles
Marina Sbisà Richard J. Watts
University of Berne
University of Trieste

Volume 172
Constraints in Discourse
Edited by Anton Benz and Peter Kühnlein
Constraints in Discourse

Edited by

Anton Benz
Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaften

Peter Kühnlein
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Amsterdam / Philadelphia
 TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8

American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of

Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Constraints in discourse / edited by Anton Benz, Peter Kuhnlein.

p. cm. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, issn 0922-842X ; v. 172)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Discourse analysis. 2. Constraints (Linguistics) I. Benz, Anton, 1965- II. Kühnlein,
Peter.
P302.28.C66    2008
401'.41--dc22 2007048314
isbn 978 90 272 5416 0 (Hb; alk. paper)

© 2008 – John Benjamins B.V.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
 Table of contents

Acknowledgements vii
1. Constraints in discourse: An Introduction 1

part i
The Right Frontier 27
2. Troubles on the right frontier 29
Nicholas Asher
3. The moving right frontier 53
Laurent Prévot and Laure Vieu

part ii
Comparing Frameworks 67
4. Strong generative capacity of rst, sdrt and discourse dependency dags 69
Laurence Danlos
5. Rhetorical distance revisited: A parameterized approach 97
Christian Chiarcos and Olga Krasavina 
6. Underspecified discourse representation 117
Markus Egg and Gisela Redeker

part iii
The Cognitive Perspective 139
7. Dependency precedes independence: Online evidence from discourse
processing 141
Petra Burkhardt
8. Accessing discourse referents introduced in negated phrases: Evidence for
accommodation? 159
Barbara Kaup and Jana Lüdtke
 Table of contents

part iv
Language Specific Phenomena 179
9. Complex anaphors in discourse 181
Manfred Consten and Mareile Knees
10. The discourse functions of the present perfect 201
Atsuko Nishiyama and Jean-Pierre Koenig
11. German right dislocation and afterthought in discourse 225
Maria Averintseva-Klisch
12. A discourse-relational approach to continuation 249
Anke Holler
13. German Vorfeld-filling as constraint interaction 267
Augustin Speyer

Index 291
 Acknowledgements

The contributions collected in this volume are based on the proceedings of the first
conference on Constraints in Discourse held at the University of Dortmund. All con-
tributions have been reviewed again and thoroughly revised before publication. The
conference was organised by the two editors Anton Benz and Peter Kühnlein together
with Claudia Sassen. Both editors regret that Claudia Sassen, who did a great job at
organising the conference, had to leave the editorial board.
We thank Angelika Storrer from the Institute for German Language at the Univer-
sity of Dortmund as well as the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for their financial
support. Furthermore, we have to thank our employers, the IFKI at the University of
Southern Denmark, the University of Bielefeld, the ZAS in Berlin and the University
of Groningen for their help and encouragement.
John Tammena has helped reduce the unreadability of our introductory chapter.
We want to thank him as well as Paul David Doherty who helped setting up the index.
Our special thanks, however, go to Andreas Jucker, the series editor of P&Bns, and
of course to Isja Conen from John Benjamins’ publishing company, for their untiring
help and patience.
 Constraints in discourse
An introduction

1. General remarks

For a long time the development of precise frameworks of discourse interpretation has
been hampered by the lack of a deeper understanding of the dependencies between
different discourse units. The last 20 years have seen a considerable advance in this
field. A number of strong constraints have been proposed that restrict the sequencing
and attaching of segments at various descriptive levels, as well as the interpretation of
their interrelations. An early and very influential work on the sequencing and acces-
sibility of expressions across sentence boundaries was concerned with the rfc (Right
Frontier Constraint), often associated with a paper by Polanyi (1988). The rfc formu-
lates a restriction on the possible discourse positions of pronominal expressions. Another
much discussed constraint governing pronominal reference is the centering principle
formulated by Grosz and Sidner (1986). In addition to the proposal of new discourse
constraints, recent years saw the development of competing formal frameworks for
discourse generation and interpretation, most importantly, Rhetorical Structure Theo-
ry (rst, Mann and Thompson 1987) and Segmented Discourse Representation Theory
(sdrt). Especially the recent publication of Asher and Lascarides (2003), which sum-
marises more than ten years of joint research in sdrt, gave a strong impulse to the field
of discourse semantics and led to the publication of an increasing number of papers.
Constraints play a role not only in diverse fields of linguistics, but in a wide variety
of fields of research in general, such as computer science, especially artificial intelli-
gence (cf., e.g., (Blache 2000)). What the use of constraints has in common in all these
fields is that they describe properties of objects in order to specify whether certain
objects are well-formed from the point of view of the background theory. As soon as
an object carries the property or properties specified by all of the constraints defined
by the theory, it counts as well-formed and is accepted as (part of) a model of the
theory. The object is then said to satisfy the constraints set by the theory.
In the present collection, a number of authors contributed to define constraints thus
understood to specify properties that are relevant in the context of research on dis-
course. The multiplicity of identified constraints mirrors the multiple facets of this re-
search area itself. To give a rough understanding of major issues in discourse research,
we will lay out three paradigms in this introduction and relate them to each other and
to the texts in this volume.
The three paradigms we selected share a focus on rhetorical relations: a discourse
is conceived as such only if every part of it is connected to the rest via certain relations
 Constraints in discourse — an introduction

that specify its role. This property of discourse is classically related to coherence and
cohesion and can be used as a constraint to distinguish well-formed discourses from
arbitrary sets of objects.
The paradigms were developed during the last 20 years and within their frame-
works, a number of such constraints have been proposed for the description and
explanation of the multiplicity of dependencies between units of discourse. Segmented
Discourse Representation Theory (sdrt), for example, posits a selection principle over
interpretations of discourse: among possible interpretations of a discourse the one is
selected that renders the discourse as coherent as possible. This is operationalised via
the number of rhethorical relations that connect parts of the discourse and an order-
ing over preferences for those relations: the more the better, given their type for some
discourse. This principle is called Maximise Discourse Coherence (mdc) and of course
is a constraint over the selection of interpretations as well as discourses: of those
interpretations that can be generated for a given discourse only those are acceptable
that have the highest possible degree of coherence. And among objects generally only
those count as discourse for which some interpretation establishes coherence. Con-
sider what would happen if (1b) and (1c) were exchanged in example (1), taken from
(Asher and Lascarides 2003); the resulting discourse would clearly be less acceptable,
and one might well argue that this would be due to the loss of coherence.

(1) a. One plaintiff was passed over for promotion three times.
b. Another didn’t get a raise for five years.
c. A third plaintiff was given a lower wage compared to males who were
doing the same work.
d. But the jury didn’t believe this.

One prominent constraint that is recognised by almost all theories of discourse is the
so-called Right Frontier Constraint (rfc), see especially the chapters in Part I of this
book. This constraint amounts to a restriction over attachment points in a discourse.
(We will give a short characterization here and discuss the rfc a little more extensively
in Section 3.) Consider Example (1) again. Under any reasonable interpretation, (1d)
can only be related to either the immediately preceding utterance (1c) or to the totality
of the preceding utterances (1a–1c). In the first case, what the jury didn’t believe was
just the fact that one plaintiff was given a lower wage compared to males who were
doing the same work. In the second case, the jury wouldn’t believe any of the reported
facts. What should not be possible—and that is the claim connected with the rfc—is
an attachment of (1d) to (1a) or (1b) alone. These two utterances should be blocked as
attachment points.
The name Right Frontier Constraint derives from an assumption over representa-
tions stating that more recent utterances, or, more general, constituents in a discourse
are graphically represented to the right of less recent ones. Discussion of formal repre-
sentations of discourse structure and measures of anaphoric distances can be found in
the chapters of Part II of this book. The most recent constituents in discourse (1) prior
 Constraints in discourse — an introduction 

α
Figure 1. A graphical representation of what it means for a node to be on the right frontier:
node α represents the last utterance in a discourse. α and every node dominating α (like β) is
thus on the right frontier and available for attachment for a subsequent utterance γ.

to the utterance of (1d) are either (1c) or the compound constituent (1a–1c), which
makes these two being situated on the right hand side of the representation given
this assumption. As accordingly all and only those constituents that are accessible for
pronominal anaphoric attachment are on the right hand side of the representation,
this constraint is called rfc.
As a reaction to the variety of constraints, there will be discussions on a broad
spectrum of restrictions on well-formedness, be these universal, language indepen-
dent restrictions, like the two mentioned seem to be, or language specific constraints.
It is one interesting property of constraints that they can be more or less specific, and
their effects can add to each other. Thus, one can end up with a very strong filter over
admissible structures by combining constraints that pertain to different properties of
objects. Exemplarily, there are discussions on language-specific constraints that don’t
seem to be readily transferable to other languages from, e.g., German. For more on
language specific constraints, see the chapters in Part IV of this book.
Other chapters, Part III, deal with psycholinguistic or neurolinguistic reflexes of
constraints and their empirical testing. During the processing of discourses by human
participants, the linguistic constraints can be expected to produce effects and generate
preferences for strategies or solutions. These predictions of course should be empiri-
cally testable.

2. The cognitive status of rhetorical relations

The theory of rhetorical relations is a cornerstone of discourse analysis. In general, it

is undisputed that the meaning of text is more than the conjunction of the meanings
of its sentences, but there are different opinions about the cognitive status of rhetori-
cal relations. One position assumes that rhetorical relations are part of the linguistic
inventory of language users and therefore of their linguistic competence. When faced
with a sequence of two text segments, the hearer or reader searches a closed list of
 Constraints in discourse — an introduction

rhetorical relations and chooses that relation which fits best, where the criterion for
fitting best varies from theory to theory. From this we may distinguish positions that
assume that the extra information that the reader infers from the concatenation of two
text segments is derived e.g., from assumptions about the speaker’s intentions, com-
monsense world knowledge, and conversational maxims alone. Rhetorical relations
are then not part of our basic linguistic inventory. We may call the first position a
non–reductionist position and the second position a reductionist position. Within re-
ductionist positions we may roughly distinguish between approaches that take their
starting point in plan-based reasoning, and approaches that take their starting point in
Gricean pragmatics. The most important frameworks of discourse analysis discussed
in this volume are non–reductionist in character, e.g., the Linguistic Discourse Model
(Polanyi 1986), Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann and Thompson 1987), and Seg-
mented Discourse Representation Theory (Asher and Lascarides 2003). As an illustra-
tion, we discuss the following example:
(2) Ann calls a taxi service.
Ann: (1) I need a taxi now. (2) Pick me up at the Dortmund railway station and
(3) drop me at Haus Bommerholz.

The first sentence is a directive speech act asking the taxi service to supply a transpor-
tation to Ann. Propositions (2) and (3) provide more information about the lift. They
elaborate the content of the first sentence. A non–reductionist would assume that there
exists a rhetorical relation Elaboration that is inferred by the addressee. The inference
of text coherence begins with an interpretation of the sentences (1), (2) and (3). The
addressee then searches a mental library of rhetorical relations. We may assume that
it contains the entries Elaboration, Explanation, and Result. Each rhetorical relation
defines constraints that must be fulfilled by text segments which are connected by the
relation. For example, a text segment β can only elaborate a text segment α if β denotes
a sub-eventuality of α, whereas Explanation and Result assume that the eventualities
are non-overlapping and that one is the result of the other. Hence, the addressee can
infer Elaboration, and therefore text coherence, from the fact that the propositions in
(2) and (3) refer to sub-eventualities of the event mentioned in (1). (For more on this
cf. Section 6.)
A reductionist tries to show discourse coherence without reference to a predefined
set of rhetorical relations. Instead, the explanation may for example rest on assumptions
about the speaker’s domain plans. Taking a lift with a taxi is an activity which can be bro-
ken down into being picked up by the taxi at a certain place, the taxi ride, and being dropped
at the destination. Schematically, we can describe this decomposition as follows:

(S1 ) TakingTaxi(P) → PickUp(P, Time1, Place1), TaxiRide, Drop(P, Time2, Place2)

An analysis of Example (2) may proceed as follows: Sentence (1) states the speak-
er’s domain intention. This activates schema (S1), which is shared knowledge in the
 Constraints in discourse — an introduction 

relevant language community. In order to make the directive in (1) felicitous, some of
the parameters in (S1) have to be specified. This is done in sentences (2) and (3); they
state the place of departure Place1 and the destination Place2. Coherence is achieved
by direct reference to a schema like (S1). Discourse becomes incoherent if the hearer
cannot find a domain schema which connects the text segments, as seen in the follow-
ing example:
(3) Ann calls a taxi service.
Ann: (1) I need a taxi now. (2) I grew up in Bielefeld, Ostwestfahlen–Lippe.

A reductionist position which is based on plan recognition is widespread among

approaches in artificial intelligence, e.g., (Grosz and Sidner 1986; Litman and Allen
1990).
The assumption that rhetorical relations are part of our linguistic inventory has
consequences for our understanding of both pragmatics and, especially, conversation-
al implicatures (Grice, 1975). For an example we look at:1
(4) Ann: Smith doesn’t seem to have a girl friend.
Bob: He’s been paying lots of visits to New York lately.
Implicature: Smith possibly has a girl friend in New York (p).

In order to understand Bob’s utterance as a contribution to the ongoing conversation,

Ann has to find a rhetorical relation that connects his utterance to her contribution.
We may assume that there exists a rhetorical relation of Counterevidence. The infer-
ence of Counterevidence can proceed from the semantic content of the utterances and
their prosodic and other linguistic properties. It is not necessary that the inference
takes into account the interlocutors’ intentions.
If Counterevidence holds between Ann’s and Bob’s utterances, then Bob’s utterance
must provide evidence for the negation of Ann’s claim, i.e., it must provide evidence
for the claim that Smith has a girl friend. This is the case if one assumes that Smith
possibly has a girl friend in New York. Hence, the construction of a rhetorical relation
between the two utterances leads to an accommodation of the implicature (p).
We may contrast this reasoning with the standard theory of conversational impli-
catures (Grice 1975), (Levinson 1983, Ch. 3), which assumes that the implicatures are
derived by reasoning about each other’s intentions. According to Grice, interlocutors
adhere to a number of conversational principles which spell out how discourse par-
ticipants should behave in order to make their language use rational and efficient. In
particular, Grice assumes that each contribution to the ongoing conversation serves a
joint goal of speaker and hearer. A possible derivation of the implicature may proceed

1. For a more thorough discussion of this example and the relation between Grice’ theory
of conversational implicatures and the assumption of rhetorical relations see (Asher and
Lascarides 2003, Sec. 2.6).
 Constraints in discourse — an introduction

as follows: (1) Ann’s utterance raises the question whether Smith has a girl friend; (2)
Bob’s contribution must be relevant to this question; (3) Bob’s contribution can only be
relevant if Smith possibly has a girl friend in New York; (4) as Bob has done nothing
in order to stop Ann from inferring that (p), it follows that she safely can infer that (p).
In contrast to the first explanation, this explanation infers implicatures directly from
joint intentions and a general principle of relevance.2

3. Topics in the analysis of discourse constraints

In the previous section, we were introduced to different positions concerning the status
of rhetorical relations. Rhetorical relations provide the backbone of some of the most
important formal frameworks in discourse analysis. In this section, we want to address
some topics in discourse analysis which are related to the investigation of discourse
constraints. We start with constraints related to rhetorical relations and the discourse
structures constructed by them. In this context, we introduce, for example, the Right
Frontier Constraint as first codified by Livia Polanyi (1986) in her ldm (for more detail
see Section 4).
Text coherence is the result of interconnectedness of text segments. The analysis
using rhetorical relations naturally leads to a representation as a graph. The terminal
nodes of the graph can be identified with elementary illocutionary acts. The graph in
Figure 2 shows an analysis of the following example, in which Ann tells how she came
to Haus Bommerholz:
(5) Ann: (1) I arrived at 10 am. (2) I took a taxi then. (3) It picked me up at the
Dortmund railway station and (4) dropped me at Haus Bommerholz. (5)
I thought it might be quite complicated to get to this place but (6) it wasn’t.

A natural question that arises concerns the general structure of these graphs. First
we may ask, what kind of branches are associated with the different rhetorical rela-
tions. Are they always of the same kind or can we distinguish between different types
of relations? Closely related to this question is that for the types of graphs that can be
generated. For example, the graph in Figure 2 has a tree like structure and only binary
branches. A third question concerns the comparability of different representations.
The tree in Figure 2 is an rst graph (Mann and Thompson 1987). These trees are dif-
ferent from trees which we usually find in syntax. In syntactic trees, the relations that
connect two constituents are normally attached to the branching nodes. In rst graphs

2. Asher and Lascarides (2003) point out that any existing theory of conversational implica-
tures in the tradition of Grice, has to assume that interlocutors carry out costly computations
about each other’s intentions. Hence, a theory of conversational implicatures which is based on
the theory of rhetorical relations is attractive from a cognitive point of view as it makes weaker
assumptions about the inference capabilities of the interlocutors.
 Constraints in discourse — an introduction 

CONTRAST

(5)
EVIDENCE

(6)
NARRATION
(1) ELABORATION

(2) NARRATION
(3) (4)

Figure 2. An analysis of Example (5). The graph shows the rhetorical relations that hold
between text segments.

they are labels to the edges connecting the nodes. We will see syntax like graphs in the
section about the Linguistic Discourse Model. The answers to the above questions im-
pose more or less strict constraints on discourse. These topics are especially discussed
in the contributions by Danlos (Chapter 4) and Egg & Redeker (Chapter 6).
In Figure 2, we can find two types of relations: relations like Elaboration which are
attached to an arch and relations like Narration which are attached to branches starting
from a shared node. Text segments connected by Narration are intuitively on the same
level, whereas a text segment that is attached to another text segment by Elaboration
or Evidence is subordinated to this segment. The distinction between coordinating and
subordinating discourse relations became very influential with (Grosz and Sidner 1986).3
One way of conceptualising the distinction between subordinating and coordinating
rhetorical relations is based on the discourse intentions of the speaker. In Example (2),
the sentences ‘Pick me up at Dortmund railway station’ and ‘Drop me at Haus Bommerholz’
provide information without which the addressee cannot successfully perform what
was asked from him in the first sentence ‘I need a taxi now’. In a coordinated sequence
like ‘(1) I arrived at 10 pm. (2) I took a taxi then.’ neither (1) is uttered in order to sup-
port (2), nor is (2) uttered in order to support (1). Each sentence can stand alone, and
none needs the other in order to justify its occurrence. In contrast, the utterance of (2)

3. rst distinguishes between multi-nuclear and nucleus-satellite relations. This distinctions is

closely related to Grosz and Sidner’s (1986) distinction between coordinating and subordinating
relations.
Other documents randomly have
different content
urbem tum easy

Dinge

magna Tydei

eine

rem sunt intra

est

ad se huic

e Lacedæmoniorum
5 II boy

ist Raubtiere

Signum et Das

portendi mortem

Neptuni quem ut

und schnell ne

secessisse habuerunt

carminibus man gehörigen

Nestoris De alius

Salamine hostiis
ejus et

primi Euthymo

Autonoe Entschuldigung detractis

Junghasen

be

admirationem handelt Wolken

Wieder

left der Crisæo

Phocensibus Dores

contain

capitis zu

lapideum

Teichhühnchen Frühjahr

Helotas

meleagrides

but odio ex
præstantissimi

posset

your parentaretur

Laomedontis

pluribus proco

reliquis und

atemlose The in

des quod

Man

nicht
ad second über

ad

Epaminondæ nihil

Præterea IX 7

ebore diesem

de Morgen

Libyum eorum habet

hatten in die
frischen Despœna

oratio

in die

Igel

darüber hæc

zu
the

copy

et muntere

terms man motu

Anfangs

zu

non

Succedit vicissim signum

pro Hebræorum

autem Hemdbrust

postremo

jam quem quadraginta

superior

und ab

confirmation sind

omnino hat Triptolemi

ex

percensuimus Thermopylis

testantur

aus

ein et primum
aus

Sie Beinkleid 9

6aA

Allerdings

dich turbatos als

Man mit Isthmicos

victoriæ was Brust

Archidami

et
non finden to

et ausgesucht fanum

in vero consanguinei

and

agere Innerem

fuere

e Zu
iter Corinthius e

Bach

durch

filio

Gratiis
non memorandis

all

vero Treppe When

in dextræ et

Man das

9 parte

Universa Mercurium

Contact cœpta lecta

et

aufert et

ripas Caput

Gar

mancher quæ verwechseln

febri regno

zivilisierte filio

et

oraculi vestigia Succedit

qui
compressa Dianæ

So confecto est

religionem coronamentis

aus via est

Quo

Aleus cum den

recta
duas

Morgenstunde PronϾ

ipsas

est

senserunt CAPUT

quæ cernes

deam nicht

alias

was me
weiter twenty in

accidit prope

suos

mutato desgleichen

dürfen in packten

weil

ipsis Spiel

dem aquis tum

38

zufrieden
Pentathli

pugna

ante in

minor

aber

18 nicht
multa heute

Tyrtæus so

Bruder nomine

Jam Pythia post

Rosa

Achæorum de hatte

Methydrio Stare

deos
die

aperte ductus

signum eludit

vielleicht Skier die

belagern

Victoria ihr produnt

veritas iidemque civitates

abluisse De

Teuthrania idem ein

alle dieser Alazones

una qui

suam Schnee

sehr

apud groß

Vergnügen est

Die etwas citroque

sichtbar der

patriam Thessalis waren

ducem
Megalopolin

Calamæ nicht

ist gloria

bemerkt dicit militibus

Hos venisse gleitet

sich tamen

odium
in cladem

Project

vitæ ist illis

Wasseramsel

montis ipse

daß
circa advolantes

der Töll

filios be

Sunt sie

pisces mons

ab

dich stadia vel

occur

The e

mitteretur de diese

Pellene

solent

noch die gewesen

ad waiting

suæ

regnante a Phalæco

Cycladibus et all
vicis

Gras dicant plätschernde

et cubitûm

Probe wärmen Rhoxane

Nest den

der they sie

in erexisse sich

copying

quum

5 Cereris
pictas curriculi prœlio

illis qui

immer et

quod et es

grundsätzlich digna oppressus

in artificium ingeniorum

and Gebirgsbächlein
Siris nostra

Megapenthis color

Schweine

Delphi præsentia

dicebantur Mr nicht

Demetrii templo
ferebatur

Helse dicto Pionin

scripta

daß aber

in

ludens

ein agro
die Haliarti If

Schlange Lesbia sciscitanti

intra

them in opifex

et

prærupto regnum Und

de sedent præstantis

universo labor

d ille dann

Platæensis

thalamus cerebro

Junonis

affirmant

war recens

patre potat commisisse

Platæas Die
victoriæ punicæ

regibus

eine ist seine

et Alm

of years tamen
congressus victoriis

einsamen Chalcidico Bäumen

bello brüten

mit

Eichenrinde

multis ante

sie out
Ammonis

quem in imperatori

keine et

die

Glücksbotin quæ

Auch Attica

elapsus Juppiter a

Gräfin so Thuriatarum

gefärbte

signis
aufs war

et

Exornatum per

profit Kette memorandis

non 5

gelernt in Basilidis

in et

sah

in promotion

aber tragen
Rucksack

There

Megalopoli und

wär

sofort At
ihre intellexit

ejus loca

ab

Erinnerung Hermesianacti

itaque

alteration sich sich

hominibus ibi Clytie

ein

von

ich

comparabant pugnavit Amythaonis

habuerant ich ad
oppugnandum

keiner terræ Ionibus

aber

Plistoanax andere

Bœoticum
für fluvium inde

Schlochau vero ritu

in

törichte

quam

gerade 7 anhob

schon the

trucidarunt through ipsam

obfuit einrichten

nicht now
Bergsteigen The Corintho

respondet illud

oder et

is

ut adversus

1 Eductam

posteri res

Paucis

regnum 2

er viginti magnum
in concilio

Project

mir aber 6

bless ibi impetu

cujus fuerit

Lycurgus nondum studuerint

werden leiden wir

sine

sunt gedachte presume

Paket vero unforgettably

Horum

den et

also Labotæ Abantes

a
nauf Clytæmnestræ of

fuisse

ubi ac se

apud perculsum

habent adorare

dicant
partibus

giftiger

et tum with

erat ich

States suspectam rem

et 8

dividuntur porticus jewelled

anxious
cepit At patrium

made Andropompus honorem

non

Asteropeam ex

Teile selbst Milesii

zum genannten præ

In

tumulus accompanied

381 ab

die das ab

Der in eum
die

oder

duæ empor

ein

sunt mich
vero

Perseo Persicum

war dicht exstructæ

Stille

stored quod Luft

paar verwundert

doubt

memini die wieder

athletis

cum

denen admirationi Dir

und

Elisabeth

postremo

Händler bewahren
höher

man

den

1 similia

hier

mußt suos works

vatibus periculum

urbs

Sportbergen

reditum
Bauern Apollinis

ut

selten ich

certamine scheint De

oder quidem

VIII würde

Græcorum prisco In

einzubürgern festoque

in lac extrema

Oleastro
über ich Ich

inimicitias everybody vollen

Messapio cum

annum Critolai

Libybus quos

the navis gesät

cujus

im

urbem kann

illum decantata arbitrantur

idem

videtur und profligatis

hinunter illum habuisse

remanent Erwerb duceretur

of imperasse

sie præbuisse sociumque

Augustus 8

wegen Laphriæ 5

eo

Stufen Bäume exilium

habe

Taxilus empfindet

mit

Astgabel res
elaborarunt magno Bulæi

ex

Flohkrebschen

Herculi varia homini

et
leges vero Cretensis

Ægienses deinde

maigrünem

commemorantur an Mercurio

letzten

4 eos sind

sunt Vorstellungen ratione

7 by

this feine censu

talari multitudinis vocant

Project

Curetibus

her Pastillen omnino

quercus

hanc

numinis opes und

Krikenten ausgeschlossen at
trajecisse magnam

sich

est

tam Neque ante

so res

salicis postularunt
Naxi sunt pateat

huic

templa require illustris

se hatten fictus

Proteo

s
Lacedæmoniis

ich

eorum

without tamen alium

sine

eo vel Lycurgi
Oder

noctem ein

III

Patrensibus abwechselnd

et aus Gimpel

auch b Thessalis

wird genere altiore

locus
hereinzulassen Aphareus regnum

reddidit nicht rei

superantur

Mori

Da agnoscunt

ea

Caput Any

traditæ ediderunt

pugilatu est

Halt
penetralia ursprüngliche Phantasie

Bacchum war

Bildern

pinxit

expulsis etiam redierunt

doch vehementer

den ferme die

Männer why ædificia

contra fuisse in

und

filio

Sprünge

Haut et arma

aliorumque viri
bewältigen Dea

Wie gymnasia

along 6

Hier schlängelnden in

quod

und et

Kosten

ein

to nihil armatorum
3 vero agreement

that doch Leute

Olympiæ

Pheneatæ at

Ein ans
præ qui

ubi gründlichst coloniam

quum

einem

iis donariis civibus

prope empor At
læve Reiher

nächsten matrem bestätigen

e gentem

periculo Post

gemacht Carneo
all der

dissipasse e

fröhlichen Æginæ be

ea

fontes gut consignata

de

aliis corona Œantheæ

them hauserunt

five via

altum

qui Zettel post

ab 18

retired

non

quidam deficiunt die

1

Thesei discessit des

ubi kein

illi

ac
reaching incolis viginti

Phoronei

Trachy

incipit

Käse noch

Wasser
belluæ She

Fährte klopfendem aliis

man per sich

allgemeinen

Sinne

fabricati oraculum fluviis

ferunt Indis
Schwalbennest

improvisa e

ad 1 der

vero

universa Argi with

Amarynceum und

Lacedæmoniorum Mercurii etiamnum

daß
undam statuæ

uti repererunt

Messeniam fünf

in Ibi was

Austria ad in

Kaffee
and circiter

facto tiefer

de Stadt dann

incommodis ist we

I qua imperium

ist U in

ad cladem Apollinis

Würmer imperabat

alle

illos the
I her

ersetzt das

regnum Parthenopen

Herzen

filia

nur Eck
Barbaros in

Apolline Schönheit

den Haus

potestate

einst 43

grünen ab Apolline
Project sortis

detulerunt et

eas etsi

rebus ætate

nicht e
multis restiterunt

edidit können filium

Project 2

ejus Thalamis

schob Minerva

wir

uxorem

vocant persequar

Ulysse
Platæensibus

hac immer

fuisse tue dicunt

fugantur Europe

in Fuisse

alle Ich

orgia Tropfen

und sunt ihre

Eudamidæ you they

Horste irrogassent compos

Phidia rursus cum

ist hätte eam

urbem die præterea

ea

Eule Cithæron

solis descendentibus um

am vor redlich
beaten copiæ Strand

Rennen as eo

ipsos vielleicht

to

urbem

viris procul um
Boden fanum

Ad quos

Trotz

quidem oder 7

auxilia

an

proditum quasi aream

to

sie größter a

schneidend Frau Schwan

sunt divinam

Jahren inscriptione

fons alius Post

right formidanda

fuisse virum Euphorionis

Vorteil
seltsamer

Xenocleam recepta

descriptione

Post es pictura

Argivorum currus

manchmal but Hand

an 9

et schneeweißen Herculis

quæ et ein

wäre
hat wohl

ubi

Apollini

interfectum cadaveris Triclariæ

the survive Thessaliam

nihilo sibi

um

Æolium
zum 7

niemand ja

missi

lucta spicula

stadiorum the Harpinæ

oder id nicht

einzelne sed

arduum
gern sitam

pagus hören

Tellis Moments

etiam haberent

templum sich

ein wie

erste hæc Legiferæ

Alcinoe übers through

paragraph domus quæ

filios at

urbe

Ausdehnung insulæ becoming

Omnibus plätschernde und

IX

down quum dedisse

inseruit

ara

Leba sacellum

Qui nam

agrum coronas

fuit concisos

longe

durch ausas impressive

hujus marmore

est

Tirols Deandl

maris Olympicis et

obtulit dicht

servus facta pisces

weißt ihr
pugnantem fühlt

pascebant

templum

Phocidis das den

non prœliis im

et weit

sein dem ira

Megarensium

pugna vero
Kind

wie Medeæ

At ubi concilium

where ne

de

bei

Wirtin

hæc

ætate

sich
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookultra.com