During the second impeachment trial of former president T***, one of the attorneys described some evidence as having “literally eviscerated” the opposing side. Adriel was literally floored. I had mentioned before that “literally” is a Janus word, one having two opposite meanings. It can mean actually or metaphorically. In either case, it is an intensifier. And it is perfectly okay to use it either way although language scolds wrongly claim it can only mean actually, according to the meaning of the words. Possibly the objection is based on a sort of etymological fallacy, that is, it is a descendant of “literal” therefore it should be used as such, as “according to the word”. I am usually content to use it in either sense and I am usually content with its use metaphorically by any English speaker. After all, there are easily found citations of the word used metaphorically by Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, James Joyce and even Adriel. Kory Stamper, who I mentioned earlier, wrote in her wonderful book Word by Word, the Secret Life of Dictionaries that Merriam-Webster does receive letters of complaint on many words in there dictionary. They have a brief defense against the complaints here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally .
But “literally eviscerated”? I had the image in my head of one attorney being disemboweled by another lawyer. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not a pleasant picture. There must be some usage rule that cautions against the figurative use of “literally” where it takes hyperbole to hyperbolic heights.
Two Strikes 