could be both

maybe it’s a homonym

I’m pretty sure one of those has a hyphen

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

Highly illockable

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.

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.

It’s the same thing with “unsweet,” which has apparently become the universal term at food establishments when you want unsweetened tea. I’m in the American South, so I encounter this constantly.

But what the hell is “unsweet”? What does that even mean? Did they sweeten it and then somehow take the sweetness back out? Was it accomplished through evaporation? Reverse osmosis? Some sort of industrial-scale anti-sugar process?

“Unsweet” isn’t a word.

So when I order, I specifically say, “unsweetened tea,” and the server inevitably responds, “Unsweet?”

“Gotcha.”

No. You got nothing. I said unsweetened.

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

Yes!

Unconceivable.

Unlock-able versus un-lockable

*None-lockable

For me, personally… it means able to be unlocked. If I want to say the other thing, I say “it doesn’t lock.”

Nothing is unlockable with the right epoxy.