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.
>"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". :-)
> 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;
This is a documented Indian English usage: "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.