These seven commentaries treat a wide range of topics in interesting and insightful ways. It is not possible to write a coherent response that addresses all of the criticisms and suggestions, large and small, that the authors have brought up. Several main themes emerge, however, that transcend the individual commentaries, and these themes supply the structure for this reply. They include alternatives to comparative markedness, possible counterexamples, comparative markedness on other dimensions of correspondence, and questions about the authenticity of opaque phonological processes. These themes will each be addressed in turn.