Your comment is a very good counterpoint to Sapir-Whorf-hypothesis-like opinions, but unfortunately it's also so general that it could've been posted on any art

Your comment is a very good counterpoint to Sapir-Whorf-hypothesis-like opinions, but unfortunately it's also so general that it could've been posted on any article about language and culture, since you don't reference any specific content. The submitted article doesn't talk about grammar and morphology or other typological features, so criticizing it on the grounds that there's no relationship between typology and geography is rather beside the point. What it does talk about is specific vocabulary like amiraijaut for September, the "time when antlers lose their velvet". That's reflective of Inuttitut speakers insofar as that they must've been living close enough to animals with antlers to observe the loss of velvet at the time when that translation was coined. That kind of connection between language and culture is rather uncontroversial. For example, it was inferred that proto-Austronesian speakers already had pigs, dogs and chickens based on the words for these animals across different branches of the language family being cognates that allowed reconstruction of those words in the proto-language. That hypothesis also squares with the archaeological evidence http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n2320/html/ch15.xhtml http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n2320/html/ch1... Of course vocabulary can be learned (as the author herself demonstrates) and transmitted outside the original context (e.g. this comment), so the cultural link is rather weak. People who've never seen a velvet-covered antler can still talk about amiraijaut in the same way that people who do not worship a god of war can still talk about Mars and his month March.