This reply elaborates on the many useful observations in George Starostin’s critique. A traditional “rebuttal” is unwarranted for three reasons. First, his Yeniseian data are, in my estimation, completely accurate. This is no trifle, since these are languages few linguists have studied in depth and fewer have worked with in the field. Second, his judgments regarding Yeniseian are authoritative and articulated in a way that makes it easy to expand on them where needed, agree with them outright where not, and argue for my earlier interpretation where our conclusions remain at variance. Finally, I do not believe the results of my binary Dene-Yeniseian (DY) linguistic comparison contradict G. Starostin’s current position on Dene-Caucasian (DC), which would otherwise be a source of major disagreement.