Unconceivable.

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! 🙃

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

Yes!

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

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.)

Yes

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

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.

Highly illockable

could be both

maybe it’s a homonym

I’m pretty sure one of those has a hyphen

Yes.

Why would unlockable mean able to be unlocked?