The possibilities are pretty huge, given the extent of Kurdistan. You'd have a better chance of getting an accurate answer if you can narrow down the options, e.g. by including a suspected town (Paveh? Silemani? Rojava? Diyarbakir? Yerevan?), or providing any information about the language (Kurdish is really a language family, so the form of words that you or your ancestors remember might say where they are from, thus what "kalpatin" might refer to).

You are faced with several problems if you want to create superfamilies or trace their history back to a single language.

No one knows when humans first started speaking, but assuming conservatively it was 50,000 years ago that is a very long time when you look at how rapidly languages can change. Irish and Bengali are related but quite different from each other. The furthest we can go back without hypothesising is 5000 years and then only for a tiny number of the world's languages - and even then there are uncertainties about how to interpret ancient texts, especially those not written with alphabetic or syllabic scripts. Families like Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic are the exception rather than the rule.

When comparing two proto-languages you need to bear in mind that you are comparing two hypotheses which puts you on rather shaky ground. If a language family has only been written recently you cannot go as far back with your construction of a proto-language as you can with one which has a millennia-long history. How valid is it to compare a hypothesis that takes you back 7000 years with one which only takes you back a century or two? You also have the problem that languages borrow from each other. If two proto-languages share a lexeme how can you know whether it is because one borrowed from the other or because they had a common ancestor? You have to be careful not to be seduced by apparent resemblances when what is important is correspondences. Semantics are unrealiable - if the word in proto-language A for "rope" corresponds with the word in proto-language B for "snake" it may or may not be significant. If you consider that within Indo-European there is no agreement about how Slavic and Baltic relate to each other you are not going to get agreement about how proto-languages relate to each other.

If you are going back far into pre-history linguistic methods alone are not enough. A multi-disciplinary approach is required with linguistics, anthropology, archaeology and genetics all playing a part with none taking precedence. Whilst interesting theories may emerge, the fact remains that languages leave few fossils and the speed with which languages change rules out going back to when humans first started speaking, whenever that was. The reconstuction of the first language is a chimera.

Eurasiatic superfamily includes Indo-European, Uralic–Yukaghir, Altaic, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo–Aleut languages. Also, in Eurasiatic superfamily Korean–Japanese–Ainu, Nivkh and Etruscan are sometimes included.
Nostratic superfamily includes even wider range of language families, such as Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian and Dravidian.
Borean superfamily is the biggest language family I've ever seen. Not only it includes Nostratic and Eurasiatic, it also includes Dene-Daic.
You can even see Borean language tree.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/BoreanLanguageTree.png
Keep in mind, that different version of Eurasiatic, Nostratic and Borean exist. Each version of Eurasiatic, Nostratic and Borean have different reconstructions and different range of languages or language families.
What do you think about this idea? In my opinion, superfamilies are good thing, because it makes a little easier to trace all languages to single source - Proto-Human or Proto-World language.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Human_language

Usually, you can just use the simple present. That's one reason that sometimes the perfective forms can sound odd. But it's complicated, so I can't give you a general answer.

So just to be sure: Sentences like 'Before he has sat down, he should wash his hands" or "I'd like to finish it before it has got dark" are correct grammatically, but they would sound more natural with the present simple. Is that right?

Yes, structurally possible, but not something a native speaker would say. (If the emphasis really is on the completion of the event, you could try to use those, especially if you emphasize it with "just" for example, but the frequency would probably be less than 1% compared to the simple forms.)

please if you know the answer to any of these questions please help me

[EXAM QUESTIONS REMOVED BY MODERATOR]