{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04986642920747997, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020480854853072127, 'mean_word_length': 4.947089947089947, '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}}
Studies in Indo-European Vocabulary

In our work, connected with the new etymological and comparative Indo-European dictionary, one of the main principles has always been to reconstruct Indo-European lexical items rather than hypothetical and doubtful roots. There is no need for justifying here such an approach, it should suffice to mention the work and research on the Proto-SIavonic Dictionary ("Slownik praslowianski") carried out by professor F. Slawski [1974-]. Studies in lexical relationships often result in discovering new items, some of which may be found in a number of language groups, äs for ex., IE. *apsos n. (ey-stem) '(projecting) part of the body' (Witczak 1989), or IE. *srgos 'stork' (Kaczor/Witczak 1991; Witczak 1991, p. 107). On the other hand, however, it sometimes happens that one lexical item is preserved in only two Indo-European Stocks, genetically and geographically very far removed. In such case we deal with typical examples of peripheral lexical archaisms. Three examples of Celto-Tocharian isoglosses connected with this issue are discussed by us elsewhere (Stalmaszczyk/Witczak 1990).