The word king alone is not an adjective. And since it is countable it should be either a king or the king. So the expressions like "money is king" or "the Lord is king" are ungrammatical. How would you explain it, and what meaning king bears here?
-
Curiously EL&U users have been known to say "Context is king" english.stackexchange.com/a/111341/44619 and english.stackexchange.com/a/140863/44619 Safe to say that the expression is grammatical– Mari-Lou ACommented Mar 2, 2014 at 13:04
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
King is the title of the king, and titles can be used in the same manner as proper nouns; that is, some require articles and some do not.
If money is figuratively the king, then money is king.
The second example would more likely be "Christ is King", as Christ is indeed considered to be a king, and hence to have that title (and the title Lord, but using the two titles like that would be less common).
answered Mar 2, 2014 at 0:31
-
-
Macmillan says that 'X is king' (X not a crowned head of state) is a 'phrase' (I'd say idiom): PHRASES ... something is king something that influences a lot of people a time when jazz was king It also points out the special article-less usage of King for Jesus. Commented Mar 2, 2014 at 0:48
-
1I don't think titles explain why this usage is ok. Consider “his pen is poison.” I suspect that the correct answer has more to do with the use of nouns as modifiers, as in noun adjuncts. Commented Mar 2, 2014 at 3:09
-
@BraddSzonye: poison is also a mass noun, like water or butter, and hence doesn't require an article.– mosceoCommented Mar 2, 2014 at 3:13