ANAL'OGOU’S, a. Having analogy ; bearing some resemblance or proportion ; followed by to; as, there is something in the exercise of the mind analogous to that of the body.
What part of “subject” resembles that of the “sovereign citizen”? Only in a qualified & limited sense under the English definition of a subject as not all English subjects were held equal. And also, never have the terms citizen & subject been equal in their origins. In ancient times of Rome & Athens where we 1st find the definitions of the terms subject & citizen, subject is used interchangeably with slave, while a citizen partakes in the making & enforcing of the laws. They rule over the subjects/slaves. The only way to become a citizen was to have been born to citizen parents.
So yes, they may be “(Similar in one particular aspect that can be inferred from their similarity in other aspects)”, but they can never be similar in their origins. One is conferred upon a person either at birth or naturalization by a sovereign King or Prince and can never be cast off, the other is derived by consent, either through the explicit consent of the individual or tacit consent through the citizen parents and can be changed when the individual no longer finds citizenship is a certain place conducive to his pursuit of happiness.
Hence “change of government, change of origins of how one becomes a member” of that new society that was formed. IN America, the government is NOT the sovereign, the sovereignty is in “We the People” as reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]
I can't answer that because I don't understand what you're asking. But I think that when it comes to understanding a legal decision, it's the function of the word that's important. It doesn't matter what distinction Athens made between citizen and subject, any more than it matters that the root or origin of citizen is in the word city. Surely you're not suggesting that only city-dwelling Americans can be President.
So the question the court was addressing was what the function of the word subject was in English common law and what that can tell us about the function of the word citizen in American law. Their conclusion seems to be that they have effectively the same (precisely similar) function. You're arguing, in effect, that a bird and a butterfly can't both fly because their wings evolved differently.