The Court of Peeves, Crotchets & Irks resumes its autumn assizes with a motion from Jonathan Reynolds Cronin of Vashon, Wash. He asks the court to ban all corrupted uses of “icon.” He is joined by John W. Dixon Jr. of Cyberspace and Sally Johnson of Charlotte, N.C.

The complainants’ motion must be denied, but it will be regretfully denied. In the court’s view, “icon” has been irretrievably abducted by the wordnappers. It cannot be restored to its old original status. It has gone the sad way of “replica.” Farewell!

As Reader Cronin observes, an icon (or ikon) is a usually two-dimensional painting of a saint or other holy figure. The Random House College Dictionary amplifies that definition: An icon is an image of Christ or another revered person, “usually painted on a wooden panel or done in mosaics and venerated as sacred in the Eastern Church.” Merriam-Webster dates the first use of “icon” to 1572. Since then, it’s been downhill all the way.

The petitioners cite references to such contemporary icons as Paris Hilton and Jennifer Lopez. Cal Ripken, retired third baseman for the Baltimore Orioles, is an icon. Tiger Woods used to be the golfer’s icon, but some of his mosaic tiles have fallen off. A newspaper columnist, well-known to the court, has identified his icons as Theodore Bernstein, who taught journalism at Columbia, and John Bremner, who taught at the University of Kansas. Last month USA Today wrote of Darth Vader, “the iconic baddie first seen in 1977’s ‘Star Wars.”‘

In sum, an “icon” has morphed into any object of uncritical devotion. And, as every schoolboy knows, an icon is also one of those dingbats at the bottom of a computer screen that, when pressed, produces an unwanted consequence. Next case!

Don Runyon of Easley, S.C., and the Rev. Robert C. Baird of Raleigh, N.C., petition jointly and severally for a permanent injunction against “basically.” Reader Runyon writes that he recently counted as a politician used “basically” 13 times in a three-minute interview. Once a good word, he says, “it now has no meaning whatsoever.” Reader Baird would authorize draconian punishments for repeat offenders on TV talk shows.

Beyond the esoteric realms of geology and chemistry, the court cannot think of any good use for “basically.” Or for “fundamentally,” either.

Frank Ulle of Columbus, Ohio, seeks an advisory opinion on four trickers: disorganized, unorganized, disinterested and uninterested. Merriam-Webster is not much help. Its editors define “disorganized” as “not organized.” That is true. But the adjective also carries a connotation of incoherence and confusion. By contrast, “unorganized” carries a semantic hint of “not yet organized,” as in John Kerry’s early campaign efforts. To be “disinterested” is to be neutral; umpires, arbitrators and notaries public are disinterested. To be “uninterested” is to be bored. On questions of usage, this court is seldom disinterested and never uninterested at all.

James Kilpatrick is a syndicated columnist.