Q: "cognate" by borrowing

[Jim Rader]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I recall that Eric Hamp avoided the use of the word <cognate> as
a linguistics term, though I was never sure if he did so because he
had a very narrow definition of it, or because he felt its ambiguity
rendered it useless in precise characterization of  linguistic
relatedness.  My own sense is that <cognate> ought to refer only to
strict linguistic sibling relationships and to forms that are exactly
matchable segment for segment; otherwise it's not distinct from
<related>.  But that's only a personal predisposition.
 
Jim Rader
 
> I have encountered a certain slipperiness in the use of the term
> `cognate' in connection with borrowing.
>
>