-
I get your point. I just disagree. The fact that we don't know the original definition of lots of words doesn't stop us from using them in new ways e.g., awesome. I think that "literally" could come just to mean "very", we could forget it's original definition while still understanding that new usage.
ffm-
I think that "literally" could come just to mean "very"
Oh yeah for sure, it definitely could, partially probably already does for some people. I don't think that would lead to it losing its original definition though, I don't see any indication of that. It's not a word that's otherwise used very often colloquially anyway, I'm not sure those two definitions would clash much.
My main gripe isn't with that, it's with people going "oh you mean figuratively". No, no I don't. As you suggest, it's closer to meaning 'very' in that context, which is quite different from 'figuratively'.
In any case, language development is very interesting!
SwissChap
I don't know how many different ways I can try to explain that there isn't really a new meaning in my view. The way it's used only works because it's an obvious exaggeration - this perceived misuse is a very purposeful use of a rhetorical figure. (Of course, many people using 'literally' in this way are not even aware of that, but it doesn't change the fact that this is why it works)
As I said before, 'literally' still does not mean 'figuratively' at all: saying "this literally blew me away" carries a very different emotional connotation from saying "this figuratively blew me away".
(Oh, and if it ever does carry the exact same meaning, people will stop using it, same as almost no one would actually use 'figuratively' in that sentence.)
I understand the quest for precision in language, but this is just an overly literal (ha ha) interpretation of 'specific words have specific meanings'.