Unused and Probably Unusable

Since I know I *never* commit typos, grammatical errors, solecisms, malapropisms, blatant errors of composition resulting in reversal of intended meaning, or any other sort of language production errors, it delights me no end to pick on others who do. Or more precisely, since I seldom feel comfortable broadcasting my superiority (indeed, invincibility... okay, maybe pseudonymous blogging is going to my head...), I delight when others do the correcting.

So, for example, I like the eggcorn database, where totally comprehensible, somewhat justifiable, and wildly silly reinterpretations (such as "eggcorn" for "acorn" are caught, categorized, tagged and released into the wild. It's like looking at everyone's meta-spellcheck.

I also try not to go overboard making corrections in others' comment spaces. If you blog on something of interest, that's the value; the added value of being corrected (you meant Theirs, not Theres) is minimal. Was your meaning clear? Was the context casual? Was your audience offended? The (usually) obvious answers lead to the conclusion that some typos are okay, and don't detract from the project.

Nevertheless, I found a typo I like, at Chateau D'If, by the blogger dantes (a lawyer in York, PA): The Robe is Off (one in the many, many - many! - posts collected by Howard Bashman about the reaction and backlash to the revelation of the identity of Article III Groupie).

In that post, dantes writes

At any rate, I hope the best for David Lat. I think his unmasking is going to be problematic -- his colleagues and, more significantly, his audience on the 3d Circuit, now know his alterior identity. Here's hoping it's not.

What's the interest? Alterior, a blending of ulterior (as in motive) and alternate. A simple slip of the mind or hand, but also a neat recombination. Was it intentional? Who cares? Like any great work of art, it is its own justification.

Have you got any favorite reinterpretations (eggcorns) or invented words? Bonus points for legal "words."