 There is obviously a dependency between the pronouns \(he\) and \(it\) and the indefinites a farmer and a donkey, respectively. In a nutshell, the problem for  (5)  in a classical analysis is that such an analysis gives us two choices, which taken together do not cover the possible meanings of  (5).  If we treat the indefinites as referring to a particular farmer and a particular donkey and the pronouns as simply picking up that same entities, then we get a possible yet not very salient reading for  (5).  The most prominent reading describes a co-variation between the owning relation and the beating relation: any farmer-donkey pair that stands in the own relation also stands in the beat relation. Clearly, we will need to interpret the indefinites as quantifiers. Yet if we do so, they won’t be able to bind the variables in the consequent of the conditional since a compositional analysis will place the variables contributed by the pronouns outside the classical scope of the existential quantifiers in the antecedent of the conditional. That is,  (6)  does not yield the correct truth-conditions for  (5).