Even though it's not what people mean by the saying, your reading is plausible. My Republican uncle was much nicer when he was in trouble and needed help.
I, on the other hand, tend to be the opposite.
I wasn't understanding it cynically, but as saying that times when a friend is in need are those times when you have to prove your friendship.
That's pretty much the same as the conventional reading, just viewed from the other end of the relationship, isn't it? The standard reading is: "[If you are] A friend [to me when I am] in need, [then you are] a friend [to me] indeed." Your reading is "[Unless I am] A friend [to you when you are] in need, [I am not entitled to think of myself as] a friend indeed."
Same situation, the only difference is whether you visualize yourself as being the one who's in need or not.
I would have thought that a Mineshaft veteran would know that which end of the relationship you find yourself on can make all the difference.
The cynical reading, which is what I sometimes thought it was, is "Someone who is your friend will be REALLY nice to you when he needs your help." I guess this was also BG's reading. I hate these non-mnemonic and non-action guiding proverbs. (Second complaint in re "rolling stone" and not "bad apple," which had its meaning perverted by the onset of the responsibility era.)
What I meant is that it's not effectively action-guiding if it can have two opposite meanings. I guess there was no way for people other than me to tell that that was what I meant, but it's never stopped me from commenting before.
And don't let it stop you in the future. /action-guiding
Yes, Matt Weiner, that was my cynical reading. I'm no good at that sort of behavior, because I hate having to need someone's help. I don't mind accepting help when I don't need it, but I always want to be independent and free from any need to suck up. I'd be likely to lash out.
But if I'm in a position of power, I want to be magnanimous, kind and generous, and I don't want the person to feel indebted.
I always took it to mean both interpretations: when your friend is in need, you ought to be a good friend; and when you are in need, someone who remains your friend is a good friend. Which is why it is so clever, and long lasting.
That's silly, text, because on your reading, none of us is wrong wrong wrong.
or it could be a pun: a friend in need is a friend in deed. Meaning: when your friend is needy, he is likely to do stuff for you. Or perhaps, give you the deed to his house in exchange for your services.
In that case, we are all wrong. Yay.
I've always liked the variant: "A good friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move a body."
For a while, I thought it was "A friend in need is a friend in deed."
Perhaps you can help settle this little Davenport-family debate: "A penny saved is a penny earned."
I've always taken that to mean that, when bargaining over a purchase, if you talk the seller down you are earning your savings. A penny saved during negotiation is a penny earned.
I've been informed that I am wrong, and the proverb has something to do with saving money and earning interest.
the proverb has something to do with saving money and earning interest.
Speaking a priori, that's ridiculous.... GoEnglish agrees with us.
I thought it meant "Your friend when he is in need of your help behaves like he is an even better friend". I thought it was a cynical aphorism about human nature, like the ones about the summer solider and the sunshine patriot.