The Court of Peeves, Crotchets & Irks resumes its summer assizes with a petition from Dorothy Lensinboltz of Richmond, Va., for an order separating “last” from “past” and “latest.” The court doubts that these old friends present much of a problem, but careful writers may find a distinction worth pursuing.

In evidence: A fan of Dear Abby asks for advice on what to do about her husband, who has been unfaithful “for the last 22 years.” A 14-year-old girl confesses that for “the past year and a half” she has had a terrible crush on a high school senior. A reporter for The Associated Press comments upon “the latest fad” in cell phones.

The ambiguity, if any, arises from the aura of finality that hangs over “last.” Browning’s Renaissance duke painted his last duchess on the wall. Kitty Kelley’s biography of the Bushes is her latest book but surely not her last one. The court suggests merely that writers pause for reflection before rushing into a choice of modifiers. The right word usually will suggest itself. If not, one may always try evasion, as in “most recent.”

Afterthought: The court will again denounce “past history” as a Palpable Redundancy. Avoid it! As for the husband who has been unfaithful since 1983, the court urges this faithful Penelope to get a life.

Steve Carlton-Ford of Cincinnati petitions the court for an injunction against the employment of “likely” when “probably” should be hired. He cites a headline about a fatal bullet that was “likely friendly fire.” A captive in Iraq was “likely” an al-Qaida associate. Last October (or this past October) we learned that “Advisers likely will change if Bush wins.” Would “probably” have been a better choice?

Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage devotes a column and a half to the use of the unadorned “likely.” Evidently this innocent adverb has drawn critical comment since Ambrose Bierce objected to the usage in 1909. Theodore Bernstein, the great guru of The New York Times, cherished a lifelong irk against it. He insisted that “likely” must always be delivered in a bubble-wrap of qualifiers such as “most” or “less” or “very” or “quite.” Bernstein had a thousand irks.

The late, great John Bremner, professor of journalism at the University of Kansas, agreed with Bernstein. Roy Copperud and Rudolph Flesch concurred. The New York Times says the “idiom requires” a coupling of “likely” with a modifier. The gussied-up adverb of degree enjoys an impressive entourage – but this court dissents. Nothing at all is wrong with plain old “likely,” naked and unadorned. As for “probably,” it carries more calories than “likely,” and will always be the stronger choice. Onward!

John Mark Hunter of Tennessee State University in Nashville asks the court to renew and extend its 20-year-old ban against the use of “quality” as an adjective, as in, “a quality education.” Motion granted! “Quality” is a noun, is a noun, is a noun! Stylistically speaking, there is no such thing as a “quality performance” or a “quality product.” Every product comes in degrees of quality – highest, high, middling, low, lousy and undrinkable.

Gregory S. Saenz of Redlands, Calif., petitions the court for an order distinguishing “amend” from “emend.” No problem. To amend is to change. To emend is to correct. This will be on the quiz in December. Court stands adjourned!

James Kilpatrick is a syndicated columnist.