4 ms·

> "I'm writing to intimate you.." This is a documented Indian English usage: "https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intimate https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intimate"

> "I'm writing to intimate you.." This is a documented Indian English usage: "https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intimate https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intimate" (see the verb section). Indian English has retained some strong markers from the British colonial period. There's no clear guide for how prestige and emulation will affect usage, but "to intimate" in either verbal form is a literary archaism in North American English.

rackjack 5y ago
Example of the difference between American and Indian English: https://i.redd.it/fhmx835buxl51.jpg https://i.redd.it/fhmx835buxl51.jpg
tacon 5y ago
>"to intimate" in either verbal form is a literary archaism in North American English While the second (intransitive) version from that wiktionary page is Indian, the first use is most certainly not an archaism in North American English. In fact, it was listed as a normal definition in the first dictionary that Google returned with a definition.[0] The pronunciation does shift with which definition we intend, which nicely keeps "intimate details" from sounding too much like "mating". :-) [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=intimate+definition https://www.google.com/search?q=intimate+definition
- heresie-dabord 5y ago
  > the first use is most certainly not an archaism in North American English I understand your point and applaud your literacy. However, it's not a verb in common usage, and if our friend is using the verb to intimate in North American business English in any sense, I would advise him that the term is an archaism. We can discuss at further leisure whether any given literary usage has at least one foot in the crypt of liberal education. ^_^ OED shows that the Indian English usage that we are discussing definitely comes from prior British English acceptations. > which nicely keeps "intimate details" from sounding too much like "mating". :-) OED also offers "one who intimates" to be an "intimater". (o;
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
The "to subtly imply" definition does still exist in American English. I'd suspect most people with university degrees to understand it when used. It's a bit literary, yes, and would be out of place if used verbally or in a business communication, but it is not archaic.

rackjack 5y ago

Example of the difference between American and Indian English: https://i.redd.it/fhmx835buxl51.jpg https://i.redd.it/fhmx835buxl51.jpg

tacon 5y ago

>"to intimate" in either verbal form is a literary archaism in North American English While the second (intransitive) version from that wiktionary page is Indian, the first use is most certainly not an archaism in North American English. In fact, it was listed as a normal definition in the first dictionary that Google returned with a definition.[0] The pronunciation does shift with which definition we intend, which nicely keeps "intimate details" from sounding too much like "mating". :-) [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=intimate+definition https://www.google.com/search?q=intimate+definition

heresie-dabord 5y ago
> the first use is most certainly not an archaism in North American English I understand your point and applaud your literacy. However, it's not a verb in common usage, and if our friend is using the verb to intimate in North American business English in any sense, I would advise him that the term is an archaism. We can discuss at further leisure whether any given literary usage has at least one foot in the crypt of liberal education. ^_^ OED shows that the Indian English usage that we are discussing definitely comes from prior British English acceptations. > which nicely keeps "intimate details" from sounding too much like "mating". :-) OED also offers "one who intimates" to be an "intimater". (o;

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago

The "to subtly imply" definition does still exist in American English. I'd suspect most people with university degrees to understand it when used. It's a bit literary, yes, and would be out of place if used verbally or in a business communication, but it is not archaic.