Re: languages of pre-I.E. Europe and onwards

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:

> Sure.  I do remember that Tsimshian-IE proposal; I
> wasn't convinced.
> Yet, such hypotheses cannot be ruled out merely because the
> two units
> are too far away from each other.
>
At one of the meetings of the Chicago Ling. Circle, back in the 70s, someone
presented a paper asserting a relationship between Mayan and Uru, spoken by a
relic group who live IIRC on reed islands in Lake Titicaca, Bolivia. Quite a
few convincing correspondences and cognates!

Someone else proposed a relationship between Mayan and one of the languages of Chile
(Tehuelche IIRC, but that may not be the modern name).

Both those languages are polysyllabic and non-tonal; Mayan of course is tonal and
(I think) monosyllabic.

It would suggest an interesting pattern of migrations and wider distribution,
with gaps caused by extinction/occupation by others in much of the intervening
areas. With the Mayans as laggards who stayed behind and underwent distinct
development??