Weak vs. Strong Readings of Donkey Sentences and Monotonicity Inference in a dynamic setting

Page 110.
The formula in (6) should read
Q{ < x,y > | farmer(x) /\ donkey(y) /\ own(x,y) }{ < x,y > | beat(x,y) }
Page 112.
Immediately above example (13), "the following sentences with most" should read "the following sentences with most".
Page 117.
In the third line from the bottom of the main text, "this property of no" should read "this property of no".
Page 151, footnote 47.
I really should have referred to Neale (1990), who has the following to say:
"Along with others, I have, at times, felt that the absence of firm and consistent intuitions about the truth conditions of donkey sentences is a serious obstacle to the provision of any sort of theory that can achieve general appeal. However, I think there are enough firmish intuitions to make investigation worthwhile." (Page 254, footnote 18.)
(Added June 19, 2007.) See also Kadmon's (1987) dissertation, in which she has the following to say (page 360):
... I found the intuitions about (8) [Every man who owns a donkey beats it] just as insecure as the intuitions about (6) [Most men who own a donkey beat it], and I was as uncomfortable with analogous paraphrases for (8) as I was with the paraphrases for (6) in (221) [a. Most men who own a donkey beat every donkey they own; b. Most men who own a donkey beat one of the donkeys they own].