Mapping all the interesting connections and mutual implications and points of re ection and refraction in these commentaries would require a book-length e ort on my part. I’ve chosen to try and divide the threads into three main groups, and will discuss each in turn. The rst section is mostly about syntactic domains of locality and the position of internal arguments, asking again whether roots take complements in light of the evidence presented in many of the commentaries that shows that many internal arguments are not complements of roots. The sec- ond section is mostly about suppletion, addressing rst the question of whether the suppletive patterns of Hiaki are truly suppletive, and second the problem of incomplete complementarity in suppletive patterns. The third section is mostly about interpretation, considering rst the problem of polysemy vs. homophony within the framework, and second the question of whether idiomatic interpreta- tions should be assigned to phrasal constituents, as suggested by several com- mentators, or, as I suggested in the article, should be assigned to terminal nodes, operating in a kind of semantic conspiracy to compositionally derive the idiom- atic, ‘noncompositional’ interpretation.