Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article titled "The time and place of origin of Kartvelian languages: Insights into past human societies, biomes, biodiversity and human population genetics" provides an overview of the Kartvelian language family and attempts to analyze its origins using Bayesian phylogenetic inference. While the topic is interesting and the interdisciplinary approach is commendable, there are several issues with the article that need to be addressed.

Firstly, the article lacks a clear introduction that outlines the purpose and significance of the study. The reader is thrown into a discussion about the timing and classification of Kartvelian languages without any context or background information. This makes it difficult to understand the relevance of the research and its implications.

Secondly, there is a lack of clarity in terms of authorship and affiliations. The article lists multiple authors from different institutions, but it is unclear how they are all connected to each other and what their specific roles were in conducting the research. This raises questions about potential conflicts of interest or biases in the study.

Furthermore, there are several unsupported claims made throughout the article. For example, it is stated that proto-Kartvelian emerged before other Eurasian language families such as proto-Indo-European and proto-Uralic, but no evidence or references are provided to support this claim. Similarly, it is suggested that there is a link between Kartvelian and Indo-European languages based on linguistic evidence, but again, no concrete evidence or examples are given.

Additionally, there are important counterarguments and alternative theories that are not explored or discussed in the article. For example, while the authors propose a scenario for the split between Svan and Proto-Georgian-Zan based on vocabulary related to crop cultivation and sheep-breeding, they do not consider other factors such as cultural exchange or borrowing between different language groups.

Moreover, there seems to be a bias towards promoting Bayesian phylogenetic inference as the preferred method for studying linguistic phylogenies. While this method may have its advantages, it is important to acknowledge and discuss other methods and their limitations as well.

Overall, the article lacks clarity, evidence, and a balanced discussion of alternative theories. It would benefit from a more structured and comprehensive approach that addresses these issues and provides a more thorough analysis of the origins of Kartvelian languages.