What semantic notions underlie "inmost, innermost" (intimus) 🡲 with "make known, announce" (intimo)?

How did intimus “inmost, innermost, deepest” (adj.) semantically shift to 🡺 intimare “make known, announce, impress” ?

These meanings are polar opposites! If something is inmost, then it’s private — and you wouldn’t “make known” or “announce” a secret!

intimate (adj.) on Etymonline

1630s, “closely acquainted, very familiar,” also “inmost, intrinsic,”
from Late Latin intimatus, past participle of intimare “make known, announce, impress,”
from Latin intimus “inmost, innermost, deepest” (adj.), also used figuratively, of affections, feelings, as a noun, “close friend;” superlative of in “in”
(from PIE root *en “in”).

I scanned Oxford Latin Dictionary (2 ed. 2012), p. 1046. below.

I think GCIDE (the Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48) connects them pretty well, in its entries (taken from Webster’s 1913) on the verb form of “intimate” (which at first glance doesn’t seem very related to the adjective form):

Intimate \In"ti*mate, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Intimated}; p. pr. &
vb. n. {Intimating}.] [L. intimatus, p. p. of intimare to put, bring, drive, or press into, to announce, make known, from intimus the inmost. See {Intimate}, a.] [1913 Webster]

  1. To announce; to declare; to publish; to communicate; to make known. [Obs.] [1913 Webster]

    He, incontinent, did proclaim and intimate open war. --E. Hall.

  2. To suggest obscurely or indirectly; to refer to remotely; to give slight notice of; to hint; as, he intimated his intention of resigning his office. [1913 Webster]

    The names of simple ideas and substances, with the
    abstract ideas in the mind, intimate some real
    existence, from which was derived their original
    pattern. --Locke.
    [1913 Webster]

intimatus, p. p. of intimare to put, bring, drive, or press into, to announce, make known” Seems most significant to me. One can interpret the verb “intimate” as the act of passing an idea into the inner thoughts of another?

And the more modern second form, of course, is all about indirectly communicating some private or closely guarded knowledge, without coming right out and announcing it.

Hey Ferd,

Do you know what is going on with these ‘StackExchange’ posts? They are all copy-pasted from that website from what I can tell.

Seriously engaging might be a waste of time.

No, I didn’t copy paste from S.E. I saw a similar question on Reddit, but nobody answered it. I want to know the answer too, so thought to post here.

I mean… wtf. Look at the google search results. All your posts are like this. Surprised you even responded to me at all here.

1 Like

My only comments would be,

  1. The username may be a poor choice, as it makes you seem likely to be some sort of cross-posting bot. If I signed up here with the username “Google”, I wouldn’t be surprised if other users initially treated my posts with suspicion.
  2. When posting a question directly inspired by a discussion on another site, it’s usually appropriate to link back to the source, and to explain why you felt it should be brought here. Doing so also gives users the option to join the discussion there, instead, if they feel the question isn’t appropriate for this forum / is better addressed in the original location. (Which I would say is probably the case for this question, and even more so for the other one you posted that strikes me as more of a Latin linguistics question than an English-language etymology question.)
1 Like