Talk about the modern world being insane!
According to the dictionary, “literally” now also means “figuratively”
Thanks in part to the  overuse misuse of "literally," Merriam-Webster says the word can now mean its exact opposite. [....]  Literally, of course, means something that is actually true [....]  When we use words not in their normal literal meaning [...,] the correct word, of course, is “figuratively.”  But people increasingly use “literally” to give extreme emphasis to a statement that cannot be true, as in: “My head literally exploded when I read [that] Merriam-Webster, among others, is now sanctioning the use of literally to mean just the opposite.” [....] 
I've long believed that the error results from people mistakenly assuming that “literally” is derived from “liter
ary” as in “liter
ary license”, instead of learning that it comes ultimately from the Latin singular “lit(t)er
a”, meaning a “letter”, in the sense of a symbol in an alphabet.
Webster’s first definition of literally is, “in a literal sense or matter; actually.”  Its second definition is, “in effect; virtually.”  In addressing this seeming contradiction, its authors comment:
“[Usage Discussion of LITERALLY]
Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposition of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.”
Sigh. There was nothing wrong with the definition published in the middle of the past century:
lit'er·al  [OF., fr. LL. [...] fr. L. [....]  1. According to the “letter,” or the natural or usual construction and implication of a[sic]  writing or expression. [....]  4. Of senses of words, conveying the primary meaning; -- opposed to figurative, specific, etc. [....] -- lit'er·al·ly, adv.
Elided definitions 2, 3, and 5 were consistent with, instead of contrary to, 1 (as quoted in full).
So it’s okay to use "literally" to mean "figuratively" as long as you really, really, really  need want to do so? Hmph.[....]
Alas, the battle was already lost nearly 2 decades ago, when the devoted followers of the former (& original) edition of Henry Watson Fowler's great work were betrayed by its replacement by the latter edition (& successors):
· H.W. Fowler[/b]:
A dictionary of modern English usage,
1965 2nd ed. (as "revised" by Sir Ernest Gowers). Oxford University Press: Oxford (U.K.). ISBN 0-19-869115-7 h.b.; 0-19-281389-7 p.b.; OCLC 318483.
· Robert William Burchfield:
The New Fowler's Modern English Usage,
1996 3rd ed. (Preface admits "Fowler’s name remains on the title-page [... but] his book has been largely rewritten", according to Wikipedia).. Oxford U. Press. ISBN 0-19-869126-2; OCLC 36063311.
The former (1965) & original edition was
prescriptive, i.e.: addressing English as it
should be written, so as to
avoid ambiguity in conveying ideas to one's readers, which is (one of?) the laudable goal(s) of being pedantic. The latter (1996) & successor editions are
descriptive, i.e.: addressing English as it's
commonly spoken or written, including by people who are clueless about the
actual meaning or
correct spelling of words, which risks--if not jolly well guarantees--ambiguity in conveying ideas to one's listeners or readers.
My quick diagnostic for the worth of any dictionary is whether it defines "
decimate" literally, as applying to
10% of the countable objects being discussed, and
figuratively, as applying to a minority that's
significantly smaller than 50%, and plainly marks as "
ignorant" its common usage as a synonym for "devastate", "extirpate", or "nearly wipe out", regardless of how many ignorant readers readers might whinily complain that they're being "disrespected".
-------
Note *: Anon.: <
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally>