In our article (this volume), we outlined a new hypothesis for the formation of Berbice Dutch, proposing a two-stage genesis: a first phase between 1627 and 1712 in which a Dutch-lexified creole emerged in the Berbice colony, followed by a second phase in which the creole mixed with Eastern Ijo. This second phase started in 1713 following the arrival of ca. 300 speakers of Ijo, and would largely have been completed one or two decades later when greater numbers of slaves began to arrive in the colony. The mixing affected mainly content vocabulary, but some grammatical material (including affixes) was also introduced into the creole. This second phase is, in our view, the actual starting point of Berbice Dutch as we know it. The aim of Mufwene’s rejoinder is not to specifically rebut these two stages (though he does criticize aspects of it, see Section 5); he even acknowledges that “the presence of a creolized Dutch spoken in Berbice prior to the 1713 arrival of the Ijos […] is plausible” (this issue, p. 205). Rather, he takes issue with a number of assumptions that underlie our genesis scenario (but which are for the most part not directly related to it), more precisely: our assumptions regarding the ontological status of creoles and mixed languages.