And yet… not so much (@petersokolowski.bsky.social please feel free to correct me): to me, ‘literally’ has undergone the same kind of semantic bleaching as ‘very’, which has evolved from meaning ‘genuinely’ to being used as a degree adverb.

Hence, in a sentence such as ‘I literally died’, not only can ‘literally’ not be paraphrased as ‘figuratively’ (obviously), but I’m not even sure one can really claim that its use is figurative.

Granted, you wouldn’t say of something that it was ‘very X’ if it weren’t ’X’ in the first place, but as far as ‘literally’ is concerned it looks like a matter of grammaticalisation more than metaphor: the verb ‘die’ carries the metaphor / is used figuratively, not ‘literally’. What do you think?

I agree that its use seems to be more as an intensifier than any true figurative use. Yes? The etymological sense of 'literal' seems so plainly opposed is what I was replying to. People don't correct the use of 'incisive' because a knife is not involved or 'fabulous' when it's not a fable.

"Fantastic" has shifted from "rooted in fantasy" to "excellent" relatively uncommented on, and seemingly within the 20th century.