Yes at the word-formation level. OED, Bosworth–Toller, and American Heritage independently identify a present-participial formation on the love or favor base.

Yes. OED places friend on the Germanic base of free, Bosworth–Toller glosses freón as free or love, and American Heritage traces both through Germanic *frī-.

No. Historical relationship is not synchronic definition. OED gives friend its own extensive noun senses, while the Germanic base links the histories.

No. OED says fiend shows a similar formation, but the two agent nouns are built on different verb bases. Parallel morphology does not establish cognacy.

Yes. MED derives frẹ̄nd from Old English frēond, and OED supplies the continuous form history into modern English.

No. OED and MED inventory friand, freond, frend, frind, vrend, freynd, frynd, and many further forms.

No. It is a normalized reconstruction used to represent the common participial formation behind the daughter-language set.

No. OED and MED document ally, supporter, patron, relation, lover, address, and other uses beside close companion.

Yes. OED lists the Old and modern West Germanic forms in the inherited cognate set.

No. OED says the Scandinavian words center the sense relative, while their ordinary friend sense is expressed by another word family.

No. It is one source-reported Old English textual witness, not a birth certificate for the word or its earliest surviving physical token.

No. OED describes Old English ēo and īo, late monophthongization, and Middle English long and short vowel variants.

No. Historical phonology supports normalized approximations, not audio recordings or one recoverable dialect realization.

Yes at the comparative word-formation level. OED places the Old Icelandic form in the inherited participial cognate set, while Cleasby–Vigfússon and Fritzner derive it as a participle of frjá.

No. They descend from different Germanic verb families. Their Old Norse pairing is rhetorical and semantic, not genealogical.

No. It is a normalized reconstruction behind the daughter-language cognates.

No. Cognates can diverge semantically. OED explicitly contrasts West Germanic friend with Scandinavian relative, and ONP documents the Old Norse distribution directly.

Yes at the comparative word-formation level. OED identifies a noun use of the Germanic present participle, Bosworth–Toller calls freónde loving the participle of freón, and American Heritage independently gives one who loves.

No. The formation motivates the inherited noun, but attested uses include companion, ally, relation, religious epithet, and legal arbitrator.

No. OED separates close acquaintance, non-enemy or ally, and relation senses already in Old English; Bosworth–Toller adds patronal, religious, and arbitration contexts.

No. OED cites the Rushworth Gospels and Laws of Cnut under close relation or kinsman. The sense later becomes regionally restricted in English but is attested in Old English.

Yes. OED cites the early Old English Orosius translation for Hannibal never becoming a friend of the Romans and separates ally from intimate-companion use.

No. OED calls fiend an antonym with a similar formation, while the reviewed graph traces the nouns to different love and hate bases. Bosworth–Toller’s pair is rhetorical evidence, not genealogy.

No separate lexemes are established here. OED treats them as dialectal reflexes: ēo chiefly West Saxon and Mercian, īo chiefly Northumbrian and Kentish, and īa Kentish unrounding.

No. OED explains them as inherited i-mutated inflectional forms, with some analogical re-formation possible elsewhere in the paradigm.

No. OED records endingless mutated and unmutated plurals, re-formed frēondas or frīondas, and rare vowel-final analogical forms.

No. It is a normalized reconstruction behind a published cross-Germanic cognate set.

No. Companion, ally or non-enemy, relation, religious friend, and social-legal helper uses are already represented in the Old English citation record.