English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

From Obama's second inaugural speech:

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

I know that he was referring to Martin Luther King, Jr. But why did he use the indefinite article "a" before "King"? Is it better, for example, to use "Dr. King" or just "King" instead? Does the use of the word "a King" provide a sense that Dr. King was the king of something, such as righteousness, justice, etc?

share|improve this question

Stylistically, the phrase "to hear a King proclaim..." echoes the previous construction "to hear a preacher say...." The repetition of the indefinite article maintains the flow of the speech. (Imagine how awkward it would have sounded if, in place of "to hear a King proclaim," Obama had said "to hear the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. proclaim....") Of course, the construction also invites the listener to consider the double-meaning of "King"--as the other answers say, it identifies the speaker (MLK) and also the speaker's symbolic importance (as a leader of the Civil Rights movement and as the "moral leader of our nation").

share|improve this answer

By adding the a, Obama elevated MLK to an archetype, just as an intellectually average or above person might say, "I'm no [= not an] Einstein, but it seems to me that doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is insanity in this case". It doesn't mean that MLK was the king of anything, only that he is a symbol.

share|improve this answer

It is a pun being used stylistically. MLK is likened unto a king, and King happens to be his name.

share|improve this answer

Perhaps he meant to give the phrase a subtle double entendre. I could be read to mean Martin Luther King Jr. and it could also have a meaning that we need to be guided by leaders (even if they are kings) who value individual freedom for all people.

This is perhaps a subtle, somewhat ironic reference to some kings elswhere who do not put freedom of their own subjects, let alone the freedom of all people, as their first priority.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.