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

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.)

Sokath, his eyes uncoverable.

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.

If you can’t unlock it, is it really a lock?

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

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

Curse you! 🙃

could be both

maybe it’s a homonym

Highly illockable

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.

both, but not at the same time. words change meaning with context. thats why there often are several definitions of a single word.

Both definitions refer to the same thing, right? A locked lock is unlockable. It cannot be locked further, AND it can be unlocked.

Vice versa for the unlocked lock.

Depends on the cawntex