A nod is as good as a wink, to a blind horse

At about the turn of the millennium, I got a call from this friend of mine who was very wealthy and powerful and at the head of a huge empire. He uncharacteristically called me to discuss business and the fact that he was at an impasse with a corporate tenant who just happened to be a client of mine.

Apparently, his eccentric tenant said to him in the heat of the moment,
'A nod is as good as a wink, to a blind horse'. The reference to a blind horse angered my friend as he saw this as an insult, especially to have been compared to a blind horse.

I tried to explain that the proverb was relevant in the situation they were in, and that he should not take it so literally.

My take on the proverb was that if one party had dug their heels in, no matter what the other party did, would not be noticed. Even if the tenant conceded to him he was so firmly invested in the conflict that he did not notice.

This was how I explained it to my friend and this of how I have understood and used the phrase for the past two decades.

Today I woke up thinking I might have it wrong and looked it up, only to find that I was indeed wrong.

Seems that if you take the words on their own, my interpretation was accurate, but words and their meaning are determined by their usage and from the context of its use. The fact that most modern authors simply abbreviate it to "a nod is as good as a wink"
implies that the proverb is meant to convey something very different.

It's usually used in the context of sexual innuendo and hints of illegal activity.

For example, if a woman was wanting to go with you, and waiting for a signal, whatever you did would be read as consent. A nod or a wink would get her to jump into your arms. Anything you said would be seen as a signal of assent.

This is completely different from what I understood it to mean and I question two things.
What else was I so wrong about.
And what the hell was going on between my friend and his tenant.

M Parak
Sept 2018