 contains a free occurrence of \(y\). Evans 1980 suggests that since pronouns are referring expressions, they should be analyzed as definite descriptions; and if the pronoun occurs in the consequent of a conditional, the descriptive conditions are determined by the  antecedent. This leads to the following E-type analysis of (1): \[ \begin{multline*}\forall x ((\mathrm{Farmer}(x) \wedge \exists y (\mathrm{Donkey}(y) \wedge \mathrm{Owns}(x, y)) \rightarrow\\(\mathrm{Beats}(x, \iota y (\mathrm{Donkey}(y) \wedge \mathrm{Owns}(x, y))) \end{multline*} \] Here, \(\iota x\) is the   definite description operator, so \(\iota y (\mathrm{Donkey}(y) \wedge \mathrm{Owns}(x, y))\) is “the donkey owned by \(x\);”. The trouble with this is that on the standard analysis, the definite description carries a uniqueness condition, and so (5) will be false if there is a farmer who owns more than one donkey. A way out of this is to introduce a new operator, whe (whoever,   whatever) which works as a generalizing quantifier (Neale, 1990): \[ \begin{multline*} \forall x ((\mathrm{Farmer}(x) \wedge \exists y (\mathrm{Donkey}(y) \wedge \mathrm{Owns}(x, y)) \rightarrow\\ (\mathrm{Beats}(x, \mathrm{whe}\, y (\mathrm{Donkey}(y) \wedge \mathrm{Owns}(x, y))) \end{multline*} \]   