<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="E93-1017">
  <Title>The donkey strikes back Extending the dynamic interpretation &amp;quot;constructively&amp;quot;</Title>
  <Section position="8" start_page="136" end_page="136" type="ackno">
    <SectionTitle>
Acknowledgments
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> My thanks to J. van Eijck and J. Ginzburg for criticisms of a draft, to K. Vermeulen, W. Meyer-Viol, A. Visser, P. Blackburn D. Beaver, and M.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Kanazawa for helpful discussions, and to the conference's anonymous referees for various suggestions. Appendix: (P2) fleshed out without prose Fix a first-order model M and a set X of variables partitioned between the unmarked (x,...) and marked (y,... and z,... for existential and universal quantification, respectively). (It may be advisable to ignore the marking of variables, and quantified formulas; see section 5 for some examples.) Let So be the set of functions defined on a finite subset of X, ranging over the universe of M. Given a sequence of variables ux,..., u,, in X, define the binary rela-</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> 3 a function f : s --'o,~to t such that (Vs r E s) s'p(~ := *)f(s~)) .</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> L-formulas A from the set @ defined in section 3 are interpreted semantically by binary relations  and, not to forget negation, s\[T\]t iff s=t s\[+-\]t iff you're a donkey (in which case you are free to derive anything).</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>