Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

fsckin

The past tense is "malleableized".

View on HN

Malleable is a descriptive adjective (not a verb)[1]

Malleability is a property-noun (also not a verb)[2]

These words do not have "past-tenses"

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_eng...

[2] http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/malleability

The verb malleate (shape with a hammer), related to the adjective malleable (able to be shaped as with a hammer), has the past tense malleated (as grandparent comment properly intuits).

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malleate#Verb

FYI, GCIDE lists "malleate" citing 1913 webster as a transitive verb:

Malleate \Mal"le*ate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Malleated}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Malleating}.] [L. malleatus hammered, fr. malleus a hammer. See {Mall}, v. t.] To hammer; to beat into a plate or leaf. [1913 Webster]

A transaction is not "malleable" in the hammer-hitting sense. It is only "malleable" in the abstract sense (of pliable). It makes more (common usage) sense to "exploit the transactions malleability" (pliability) than to say the transaction was "malleated" (ie, hit by a hammer). That's all I was trying to point out.

Given that "malleable"'s meaning has evolved from the same root, you're being pedantic.

"Modified"?

Mauled.

Reshaped

"Bent"? Analogy to bent money seems apt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com