The Court of Peeves, Crotchets and Irks resumes its summer assizes with a pet peeve from J. Robert Routt of Cincinnati. He is irked by the Irrelevant If and moves for its extinction. His motion will be granted.

This is the irksome construction, from The New York Times last September: “But if glacial growth provided the most striking story this summer in Alaska, the more important news was glacial retreat.”

As the plaintiff points out, the first clause is related to the second clause not by consanguinity but by a kind of shotgun marriage. Willy-nilly, the story of glacial growth will continue to be the most striking story of the summer. And regardless of glacial growth, glacial retreat will continue to be the more important news. The syntactical damage caused by the Irrelevant If may be repaired by resort to the Conjunctive Though: “Though glacial growth provided,” etc.

Paul Warsett of Minneapolis asks for an injunction against “awful” and “awfully.” He moves to ban “terribly” altogether. The court will grant these motions also, though its orders will do no good. There was a time when the first meaning of “awful” was “awesome,” as in Shelley’s “awful shadow of some unseen Power.” Merriam-Webster gallantly continues to define “awful” primarily as “inspiring awe,” but the third definition is “extremely disagreeable” and the fourth is “exceedingly great.” English is a disorderly language.

Wallace Martin of Lake Wylie, S.C., asks the court for an advisory opinion on “inject” and “interject.” The court’s immediate thought was that not even a dime’s worth of semantic difference separates one from the other. We inject a note of humor. We interject a cry of “vote!” On reflection, the court will rule that injection is long, interjection is short. Moreover, injections may require Band-Aids. Interjections take exclamation marks. The court can cite no authority for its opinions, which may be freely ignored.

Nancy C. Bolick of Conover, N.C., pleads with the court for a definitive ruling on “farther” and “further.” The court is tempted simply to resurrect an old bright-line rule: Use “farther” for distance, either literal distance or metaphorical distance. Use “further” for everything else. Trouble is, the old rule wobbles, stumbles and finally collapses under the weight of everyday usage. “He doesn’t believe we should go any farther (further?) with this investigation.” Or, “The provenance dates still further (farther?) back to George II.”

The choice of “farther” or “further” is akin to the choice between “take” and “bring.” Ordinarily the choice is easy: We bring toward and we take away, but the rule works perfectly only when the direction of movement is clear. Planning a picnic, we divide the assignments: Sue will bring the pickles, Maud will take the gin.

In the same way, the choice between “emigrate” and “immigrate” ordinarily creates little uncertainty. When Grandpa MacTavish left Scotland for a new home in South Carolina, he was an emigrant. When he arrived in Charleston he became an immigrant. The rough rule of thumb is that we emigrate from and we immigrate to, but in context the verbs may be interchanged without risk of fine or imprisonment.

Robert Johnson of Chicago is lead plaintiff in a class action against “importantly,” as in, “More importantly, weapons of mass destruction have not been found.” The court will comment mildly upon “importantly.” The comment is, aaargh! The hanging adverb is an abomination, not to be tolerated in polite society.

Some years ago, in compiling Harper’s Dictionary of Contemporary Usage, William and Mary Morris put the question of “important” and “importantly” to their advisory panel. Their test sentence was, “The truth is evident; more (important/importantly), it will prevail.” The panel voted 3-1 against “importantly” and – if the choice is limited – in favor of “important.” One member viewed “importantly” as pretentious; another said it “sounds affected.”

The court spurns both “more important” and “more importantly.” Nothing whatever is wrong with “of greater importance.” It has a ring of solid conviction. It is not stuck-up. Yes, it takes a little more space to write “of greater importance,” but the longer version gives the court a peace of mind approaching rapture. Ecstasy! Happy day! The court will take its summer recess.

James Kilpatrick is a syndicated columnist.

Copy the Story Link