• Vegafjord - demcon@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

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

  • khánh@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    15 hours ago

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

  • Skymt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    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.

    • abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Yep. Language can be funny like that. You are either modifying the adjective “lockable” with the prefix “un-”, or you are modifying the verb “unlock” into an adjective by adding “-able” at the end. Words can have multiple definitions, yay!

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Locks should always be able to be reversed. Locking something is restricting access, not denying it entirely. You don’t weld a door shut and call it locked.

    Poe didn’t write a tale about Fortunato being locked downstairs.

    “Sealed”, “buried”, “entombed”, “immured” - all perfectly good terms for closing access to something with the intent of the closure being permanent.

  • wieson@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Can we discern via stress?
    UNlockable - can be opened.
    unLOCKable - cannot be locked

  • Wataba@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

  • EffortlessGrace@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

  • Orangenkuchen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.)

    • Chaf@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Even better is “Haare wachsen lassen”. One meaning is letting your hair grow, the other is waxing your hair. Pronounced exactly the same

  • gwl [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.