memes

Unconceivable.

Unlock-able versus un-lockable

Ahh, I've been speaking english for over a decade, and I still sometimes get caught up with these and say the opposite thing of what I want

Like the whole thing of flammable and inflammable meaning the same thing.. just why?

Let me present to you a genre-classic from Germany:

umFAHREN -> to drive around something or somebody.

UMfahren -> to drive against something or somebody in a way it/they fall over.

making up the rules as we go

You seem unaware at how, while French is steered by a committee of linguists, English is steered by a mob of autofellatic influencerati fame-whores, all looking for differentiation and trends to manufacture. So fetch.

At the end, both are the same.

You end up with something that isn't locked.

Are we just making up language rules as we go?

Yes, throughout history, in fact.

And to answer the meme's question, it can have either definition based on the context of usage.

Redminds of the German "umfahren" (run over) which is the exact opposit of "umfahren" (drive around). (First is pronounced with a tiny pause after the second letter; the other is not.)

Depends on emphasis. Said with normal stress on the first syllable is "able to be unlocked".

But if you pronounce it with extra emphasis on both of the first two syllables with a bit of a pause between, I think most people would think "not able to be locked". Very context dependent though

When you say that something is easily unlockable the second way sounds clunky, but both convey the same message that whatever it is, it is not secure

almost always "able to be unlocked". "not able to be locked" is usually "non-lockable" or "not lockable".

The issue is the fact that the opposite action of locking is called unlocking and not something like delocking.

I would never use that word in either context, neither one is coherent. I would say, Picard, where is Beverly Crusher! She must shackle me, before I am overcome!

Highly illockable

could be both

maybe it's a homonym

I would say "non-lockable" means can't be locked, and "unlockable" means can be changed from locked to unlocked, implying also being lockable.

But to answer the question, yes we are making up language as we go along. For one thing we've always done that, but recently the trend has accelerated as people strive to reduce complex ideas to simple, overgeneralized slang to avoid having to think as much or do as much thumb-typing.

Sokath, his eyes uncoverable.

Both. It is already been locked and therefore cannot be "locked"; simultaneously because it is locked, it is able to be unlocked.

Yes!

Curse you! 🙃

Non-lockable feels like the right term.

'Un-' directly implies undoing, an action. 'Non-' implies a status, a non-possibility.

That's my two cents.

Nice shower thought.

to unambiguously say "unable to be locked" would be "nonlockable"

Literally yes, we are.

Cause language is a toolkit to communicate ideas, and a toolkit frozen in glass is a useless toolkit.

You need to swap out that hammer when it starts getting damaged, or put back a screwdriver when you find out you need it again, or add new tools when you find that the tools you have now aren't fit to purpose.

And sure, there's some loose screws at the bottom of the bag, but they don't harm anything, and very occasionally they come in useful.

It means it gives the illusion of being locked, until an Israeli tech company plugs into it and unlocks it for the cops.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-tech-company-says-it-can-break-into-all-iphones-ever-made-some-androids/

Yes