"puss" in Icelandic ? Swedish ?

[Douglas G. Wilson]

>If "fud" came from the Continent at any time after 500, it's not really a
>cognate.

Maybe "cognate" means something unusual here, or maybe I'm misunderstanding
something. I've been using what I take to be the usual definition: if both
words are descended from the same word, they're cognates. I hope someone
will correct me if necessary.

Just as a casual 'thought-experiment', assume that a Scandinavian word
"fud" and a (High) German word "fut" were both descended from the same
'Proto-Germanic' word. Or assume the Scandinavian and German words were
both descended from the same Latin word adopted into one or more Germanic
languages long ago. Under either assumption, these words "fud" and "fut"
are/were cognates, right? Then suppose that this Scandinavian "fud" was
adopted into English (say, at any time between 1200 and 1650). Wouldn't the
new English word "fud" be a cognate of the German and Scandinavian words?

-- Doug Wilson