Unconceivable.
memes
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Unlock-able versus un-lockable
That's mental bracketing for you.
TIL the thing I do when I’m trying to understand an ambiguous sentence has a name
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?
"flammable" actually has an interesting story:
Since 1980s use of the word, especially in safety warnings, has been sometimes discouraged lest it be misunderstood as "non-flammable" through confusion of the two prefixes in-.
Cause the verb is inflame and means to place a flame in on on something, as opposed to not flame. The problem being in both inflammable and the issue the OP of the image is the notion of re-bracketing. Rather than think of it as [inflame]able it gets converted into in[flammable] in the minds of new readers/listeners which flips the in- prefix meaning to not rather than in/on like it is supposed to be.
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.
Stop trying to make fetch happen.
The Académie Française is absolutely not a "committee of linguists". They're a bunch of rich conservatives who are way too high on nationalism, and they are infamous for going against the consensus of linguists (who they supposedly consult).
Psh, English is like half French, and prescriptivism is bad linguistics.
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.
You are able to undo the locking. It's almost like reading comprehension is shit nowadays.
un-lockable implies it is unable to be locked.
unlock-able implies that it is able to be unlocked.
It's a homonym.
At the end, both are the same.
You end up with something that isn't locked.
The issue is the fact that the opposite action of locking is called unlocking and not something like delocking.
Sokath, his eyes uncoverable.
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".
Yes!
could be both
maybe it's a homonym
Nice shower thought.
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.
to unambiguously say "unable to be locked" would be "nonlockable"
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.
Curse you! 🙃
Highly illockable
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
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. It is already been locked and therefore cannot be "locked"; simultaneously because it is locked, it is able to be unlocked.
It means it gives the illusion of being locked, until an Israeli tech company plugs into it and unlocks it for the cops.
I'm pretty sure one of those has a hyphen
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.)
Even better is "Haare wachsen lassen". One meaning is letting your hair grow, the other is waxing your hair. Pronounced exactly the same
*None-lockable
