{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018018018018018018, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004004004004004004, 'mean_word_length': 5.211180124223603, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Exploring the Corresponding Words Among the Subgroupings, Revising Swadesh List, Compared with Chinese

In 1647, the Dutch linguist Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn noted the similarity among certain Asian and European languages and first theorized that they were derived from a primitive common language which he called Scythian (proto-language). For hundreds of years, many scholars have been studying the cognate of the subgroupings of Indo-European languages. This paper with the Swadesh list compares several subgroupings of Indo-European languages and finds out that their cognate correspondence is closer. It is inferred that the Proto-Indo-European was a language with very rich vocabulary and should be contained independently in the subgroupings at the beginning of its dissemination. This paper proposes a revised Swadesh list which can be used to assess language homology degree in high or low, and compares English with Chinese. The result shows that Chinese and English have the same origin.