The Court of Peeves, Crotchets and Irks opens its summer assizes with a petition from Gladys Queen of Tucson, Ariz. She asks for a declaratory judgment on the interrogatory “Am I not?” as in the rhetorical inquiry after four martinis, “I’m a l’il tiddly, am I not?”

The court will begin by saying that “Am I not?” is unbearably stilted, stuffy and stuck-up.

The phrase wears a coat and tie on the beach. It lifts the pinky finger to sip a cup of tea. Let us eschew it; and after we have eschewed it five times, let us pit it out.

Ms. Queen asks, “What are the alternatives to am I not’?” The obvious first choice, of course, is “ain’t I?”

This inexplicable contraction has been around for the past 400 years. In the sense of “is not” or “are not,” it has been denounced by various authorities as inelegant, ungrammatical, “absolutely vulgar,” “utterly intolerable” and “always incorrect.”

A second indefensible alternative is “aren’t I,” which naturally translates into “I are not,” thus confounding the first-person singular with the first-person plural. “I’m still sober, aren’t I?” No, you isn’t.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage devotes nine columns to “ain’t.” The latest M-W college dictionary notes that although “ain’t” is widely disapproved as nonstandard, the contraction flourishes especially in the speech of the uneducated.

The note quotes usage by Andy Rooney, Mike Royko and Richard Milhous Nixon.

This court several times has urged adoption of “amn’t” or “an’t,” citing Jonathan Swift as a respectable authority. It was Swift whose character asked in his “Journal to Stella,” “an’t you an impudent slut?”

In common with many of the court’s high-minded advisories, our excellent alternatives have gained no visible ground.

Responding directly to Ms. Queen, the court recommends a shift of the negative from stern to bow: “I’m not a l’l tiddly, am I?” The proper reply, attested by certified grammarians, is, “Yes, you is.”

Their interest piqued by the funeral of Ronald Reagan, several readers have asked if the late president was buried in a coffin or a casket.

Rene Sanchez, a staff writer for The Washington Post, called it a casket three times and a coffin twice.

The court checked with three funeral homes in the District of Columbia and found them in unanimous agreement. A coffin is what Dracula slept in.

Brian Mulhearn of Memphis, Tenn., asks the court for a explication of “historic” and “historical.”

Many writers confuse the two adjectives, usually by employing “historic” when the governing noun requires “historical,” but the distinction is subtle and not easily explained.

“Historical” refers to something relating to history, e.g., an historical survey, an historical society.

“Historic” is used for something famous or important in history, e.g., “Brown v. Board of Education was an historic decision,” and “The Reagan funeral was an historic occasion.”

Readers are invited to send dated citations of usage to Mr. Kilpatrick in care of this newspaper.