17

In both the Free Dictionary and the Collins Dictionary, 'in need' means 'lacking something'. So, the proverb 'a friend in need is a friend indeed' should mean 'a friend lacking something is a true friend' literally.

How come the proverb means 'someone who helps you when you are in need is a true friend'? Isn't a phrase like 'in need' supposed to modify the noun or subject preceding it? Are there other examples where a phrase does not modify the subject preceding it?

ColleenV
  • 11,971
  • 13
  • 47
  • 85
Michael
  • 3,428
  • 1
  • 15
  • 41
  • 2
    "Isn't a phrase like 'in need' supposed to modify the noun preceding it?" Not that specifically, I think. Consider "Eating crackers in bed is a bad idea" - in bed doesn't have to specifically modify crackers, just the general idea. – stangdon Apr 27 '22 at 14:06
  • @stangdon Yep, but 'eating crackers' is still a subject modified by 'in bed'. – Michael Apr 27 '22 at 14:17
  • 1
    @stangdon "Eating crackers" is a noun phrase modified by "in bed". – Acccumulation Apr 28 '22 at 02:27
  • 2
    Poetic freedom in proverbs -- "A friend [who still acts as a friend in times when you are] in need ..." – Hagen von Eitzen Apr 28 '22 at 11:55
  • Wow, I'm a native English speaker and I just realized that I've been interpreting this phrase wrong all along. It helps to expand it two different ways: A friend (who is) in need is a friend indeed (which I think is the more natural reading even though the meaning is backwards) and A friend in (your) need is a friend indeed which is the way the phrase is generally used. Which could be expanded further as Werrf did. – DJMcMayhem Apr 28 '22 at 15:55
  • 1
    I believe this is a matter of stylized speech from the time period during which the phrase was coined versus speech we would consider grammatically correct today. – CAB Apr 28 '22 at 18:57
  • Huh, I also as a native English speaker have always interpreted the phrase differently. I actually thought it meant that a friend who was in need of something would be very outwardly friendly. I wonder if there is some inconsistency in how the phrase is used (seems so, from Astralbee's answer below). I definitely learned something new from this. – Darren Ringer Apr 29 '22 at 19:10
  • @CAB is right, this is an old turn of phrase, and if it were to be invented today, it would be worded differently. A friend in need doesn't mean "A friend who is in need of something," it means "A friend during times of need." – barbecue Apr 29 '22 at 21:06
  • @DjMcMayhem even though the meaning is backwards - seems pretty forward to me; someone who's a so-so friend of mine needs a hammer. I have a hammer. Suddenly they announce I'm their best buddy, and follow it up with "Hey, do you have a hammer I could borrow?". "Sure. Are you still gonna be my best buddy when you bring it back, if you bring it back?" – Caius Jard Apr 30 '22 at 14:55

4 Answers4

41

The Collins Dictionary definition you linked is the one to use here:

People in need do not have enough of essential things such as money, food, or good health.

The phrase makes more sense if you expand it a little bit.

A friend who stays with you when you are in need is a friend indeed. The speaker is the one who is in need, and the person who is still their friend at that time is a true friend.

The antonym of a friend in need would be a fair weather friend - one who is by your side when things are good, but who abandons you as soon as things go awry.

Werrf
  • 5,610
  • 18
  • 22
  • Can you name a few other proverbs needing expansion to express the right meanings? – Michael Apr 27 '22 at 17:43
  • 15
    I agree with this interpretation. I have always subconsciously expanded the saying as "A friend in [times of] need is a friend indeed." It's just been shortened to sound pithier. – Allen R. Brady Apr 27 '22 at 23:36
  • It's really interesting to see that there are two opposite understandings of this proverb. The other interpretation doesn't need any mental juggling, though. How do you know that you need to "expand it a little bit", or that the speaker is the one who is in need? – Eric Duminil Apr 28 '22 at 06:53
  • 1
    I've never heard other interpretations other than what Allen R. Brady mentioned. I guess this is one of those "depending on how cynical is your view about the world, you will interpret it accordingly". – justhalf Apr 28 '22 at 09:39
  • 1
    @EricDuminil "mental juggling" depends on the default school of thought of the reader. For me, interpreting "all that glitters is not gold" as (the original intention) "not everything that's shiny is precious" requires more (linguistic) mental juggling compared to the face value reading (according to me, from mathematical logic perspective) "everything that's shiny is not precious" or, equivalently "nothing precious is shiny". The latter interpretation does require (common sense) mental juggling for me, since I don't believe that "nothing precious is shiny", but it's the face value for me. – justhalf Apr 28 '22 at 09:44
  • 1
    @EricDuminil I don't know that you need to "expand it a little bit", just that it's easier to explain that way. I've honestly never heard the alternative interpretation used in real life, and the alternative does need equal "mental juggling" to make sense - at least to me. – Werrf Apr 28 '22 at 12:34
  • 2
    How is there an argument about an idiom not meaning literally what the words say. That's practically the definition. An idiom is a saying whose meaning is established through usage. Are people confused when someone says, "You've let the cat out of the bag," yet there is no cat to be found? Or that half the English speaking world says "I could care less," to mean they couldn't care less? Is it annoying to people and do they write great comedic skits https://youtu.be/om7O0MFkmpw about it? sure. Is anyone really trying to argue it means what it literally says? No. – DRF Apr 28 '22 at 15:04
  • Wow if that’s true, I’m just now realizing how much my cynical nature colors my assumptions about folksy sayings haha. I always thought it was a cynical take on how people treat you when they are in a rough spot. – Preston Apr 28 '22 at 20:12
  • 1
    In response to the query of proverbs needing expansion for true meaning, there's a number that have been shortened, and reversed because of it: "Blood is thicker than water" is often used to mean that family is the most important thing, while the full proverb is "blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb", meaning that the friends that you choose are more important than blood relations that you don't. "Great minds think alike" indicating that because you think alike, you are great minds. "Great minds think alike, but fools rarely differ", indicating the exact opposite. – Jozef Woods Apr 29 '22 at 08:52
  • I've always said 'a friend in need is usually a perishing nuisance...' – Tim Apr 29 '22 at 11:32
  • 1
    @JozefWoods that interpretation is actually a very recent invention by one guy with no actual references to support it. Basically, it's made-up. The original meaning, that family bonds are stronger, is almost a thousand years old. – barbecue Apr 29 '22 at 21:12
  • https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/147902/original-meaning-of-blood-is-thicker-than-water-is-it-real – barbecue Apr 29 '22 at 21:15
13

The majority of dictionaries define this saying as, “A friend [to you when you are] in need is a friend indeed.” This proverb is often traced back to the Greek playwright Euripides in the fifth century BCE (“It is in trouble’s hour that the good most clearly show their friendship,” a citation approximately two centuries earlier than the others that have been mentioned in any of the answers or comments so far). The earliest examples of it in English, going back a thousand years, also follow this sense, and this is how most native speakers understand it.

The earliest surviving example of the in need/indeed rhyme might be the anonymous poem Everyman from the late 1400s, which has the dialogue,

“Sir, I say as I will do in deed.”

“Then be you a good friend at need;”

(This would not be correct grammar in modern English, but it was at the time.)

You should take heed, though, that (as one of the answers says), some native speakers interpret it as saying sarcastically that a friend who is in need will pretend to be a friend. This sentiment has been expressed in various ways for many centuries, too, but reading “a friend indeed” this way is modern. Back in the 1400s, “in deed” unambiguously meant that the friend’s actions matched their words, but “indeed” in modern English can be used as a disparaging intensifier.

Regardless of whether this is etymologically wrong, though, you should be aware that that is how some people will understand it.

Davislor
  • 8,459
  • 11
  • 42
5

There is already considerable debate about the meaning of this saying, as noticed in this resource:

There are various interpretations of the meaning of 'a friend in need is a friend indeed'.

Taken as read, it means that a person becomes more of a friend when they are in need. The cynical view of this is that they become more friendly in order to get something they need from you, so it isn't really saying that they are more of a true friend at all.

Other 'interpretations' of the proverb would seem to be based on the fallacy that the 'friend in need' and the 'friend indeed' are two different people, and often compare the saying to other proverbs that align more to that meaning. This page explains the cynicism in the saying, and likens it to a more closely-matching Latin proverb from the 2nd or 3rd century which translates as "Nothing is there friendlier to a man than a friend in need".

Astralbee
  • 100,700
  • 2
  • 111
  • 222
  • Maybe what you are talking about is 'a friend in need is a friend in deed'. See here: https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-friend-in-need-is-a-friend-indeed.html – Michael Apr 27 '22 at 14:05
  • @Michael isnt that what YOU are talking about? – Astralbee Apr 27 '22 at 14:14
  • According to the website, the saying you are talking about ends with 'in deed', which adds a space between 'in' and 'deed'. – Michael Apr 27 '22 at 14:21
  • @Michael the widely known saying is "indeed". Anything else may be a typo. If there was such a saying that ended "in deed", it would have a different meaning. – Astralbee Apr 27 '22 at 14:23
  • 10
    Wow, your newly-added content seems unbelievable to me. In fact, in all the coursebooks I read, classes I attended and websites I found before, the proverb means 'someone who helps you when you are in need is a true friend'. May I ask whether you are a native speaker of English? – Michael Apr 27 '22 at 14:28
  • 8
    @Michael I have always interpreted the idiom exactly as Astralbee explains it. The fact that you came here asking for clarification because your interpretation doesn't seem to correspond with the written form is saying something, I think :) – Joachim Apr 27 '22 at 14:55
  • @Joachim Sad:( It seems that I was taught the wrong way. – Michael Apr 27 '22 at 14:59
  • @Michael Yes, I'm a native British English speaker. I'm as surprised as you are to see so many people interpret it the wrong way. You only have to read it carefully to see where they are going wrong in their interpretation. But it wouldn't be the only idiom/proverb/saying to cause confusion. – Astralbee Apr 27 '22 at 15:16
  • 2
    I've always interpreted it, and seen it used, in the way phrases.org.uk explains it. – Kate Bunting Apr 27 '22 at 16:37
  • @KateBunting Some dictionaries say the same. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a%20friend%20in%20need%20is%20a%20friend%20indeed, https://www.theidioms.com/a-friend-in-need-is-a-friend-indeed/ and https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/a-friend-in-need-is-a-friend-indeed – Michael Apr 27 '22 at 16:43
  • 3
    There are a lot more websites tracing "a friend in need" back to Quintus Ennius than to Titus Marcus Plautus. By around 800 to 5. So I'll side with established dictionaries that it is not sarcastic/cynical. – towr Apr 28 '22 at 06:24
  • 1
    It's turned around by the joke "A friend in need is a bloody nuisance." It wouldn't be a joke if it meant exactly the same as the original. – DoneWithThis. Apr 28 '22 at 06:30
  • 1
    This interpretation has a clear advantage : what you read is what you get. You don't need to add any word in order to understand it, and it seems logical that 'friend' mentioned twice refers to the same person. The two conflicting interpretations remind me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress – Eric Duminil Apr 28 '22 at 06:56
  • 2
    @mcalex Apparently so. It's very easy to side with the resource that matches what we already believe. Dictionaries often show how words and sayings are used, even through misuse. It's the reason that many dictionaries are including a definition of 'literal' that means 'figurative'. It cannot possibly mean what Oxford says it means - that a true friend shows themselves in their time of need when it says a friend in need is a friend indeed. – Astralbee Apr 28 '22 at 07:23
  • 1
    The proverb is far older in English than claimed by the link. Here's a 1546 version from "A dialogue conteinyng the nomber in effect of all the prouerbes in the englishe tongue...": "Folke saie, it hath been saied many yeres sens gone. Proue thy frend er thou haue nede. But in dede, a freende is neuer knowne tyll a man haue nede." This clearly attests the non-cynical origin. – Xerxes Apr 28 '22 at 13:37
  • 2
    Your first linked source does not support the text of your answer: "Neither interpretation 3 nor 4 [the two which interpret the 'friend in need' as being 'a friend who needs something'] appears to be supported by early texts and, as neither is widely accepted today, it seems safe to discount them." The only ambiguity this source thinks is justified is whether the proverb means that a friend in your time of need is a friend 'in deed' (one who shows it by action) or just 'indeed' (as in, a true friend). Most of this answer creates needless confusion for language learners. – Tiercelet Apr 28 '22 at 16:01
  • 1
    See my comment on the other answer and please. This is English language learners. The answers should be telling ESL people how to use the English language and how it's used. Don't confuse them with pedantic arguments, about what you think it should mean. The fact is the vast majority of English speakers use the saying the way Oxford, Cambridge and Meriam Webster dictionaries define it. – DRF Apr 28 '22 at 17:26
  • 1
    +1 -- This is the only way it makes sense to interpret the actual words of the saying. Many people say "I could care less" to mean they care the minimum amount possible -- those people are wrong. They are using the wrong words. Yet perhaps the dictionary should list that (wrong) usage anyway. People who say this saying to mean "true friends help each other" or whatever -- those people are wrong. You simply need to look at the actual words (and not add any) to understand that @Astralbee is correct. – JounceCracklePop Apr 28 '22 at 22:24
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – gotube Apr 29 '22 at 04:59
4

Paraphrasing the proverb, it means

in your hour of need

when you are in trouble and need someone to help you (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English)

from A collection of the Letters of James Hervey dated 1760

enter image description here

Shall I beg you to tell Dr.❋❋❋, that his beautiful Visions❋ were by Dodsley the Bookseller put into the Hands of a very pious and ingenious Friend of mine, who proposes an Alteration in the ninth Line of the sixty-ninth Page of the fifth Edition, where he would read Jesus instead of Virtue:

At that important Hour of Need,
Jesus shall prove a Friend indeed.

The excerpt referred to the lines found in Visions by Verse, by Nathaniel Cotton (the elder), printed in 1751:

enter image description here

And when the closing Scenes prevail,
When Wealth, State, Pleasure, All shall fail;
All that a foolish World admires
Or Passion craves, or Pride inspires;
At that important Hour of Need,
I'll prove faithful Friend indeed;
My Hands shall smooth thy dying Bed,
My Arms sustain thy drooping Head:
[…]

There is no ambiguity here, friendship is exemplified and exalted in this brief verse

Mari-Lou A
  • 27,037
  • 13
  • 72
  • 125
  • 1
    What evidence is there that this is related to the saying "a friend in need is a friend indeed?" These are good examples of related usage, but does not seem to relate to the actual saying being asked about at all. – JounceCracklePop Apr 28 '22 at 23:08