Often these new meanings of words start out as slang used in relatively narrow groups (regional, social, age groups) but can eventually spread. It’s when the press picks up on them and starts abusing them that it becomes a little more problematic. Still I have to say that most of the time I know from the context (not only in text but the speaker/author and the situation) what is meant. And in any case, as someone who has learned English as a second language I think English is homonym paradise and they are a great big part of the challenge of learning this language. But you get there in the end.

To conclude, dynamic is one of the first adjectives I think of when I want to describe language. It is inevitable. Shakespeare came up with so many phrases that at first would have seemed like a load of nonsense. Yet nowadays they are a perfectly acceptable and integral part of English and furthermore the translations of these phrases are deeply rooted in other languages around the world too. We know that no one can actually wear their heart on the sleeve (that would be gross and they would be dead) , no human has hotter blood than anyone else, and in this day and age we certainly don’t go on wild goose chases. Not literally, anyway…

As for a word that has evolved to almost signify its antonym, I think “pathetic” could be one of the most obvious ones, at least in languages such as English and Spanish. It certainly has gone a long way from its originally positive meaning (“having a capacity to move one to either compassionate or contemptuous pity” to its current use”) to its current sense used to define something or someone “miserably inadequate” or even grotesque and hideous. But, hey, that’s the way the cookie crumbles, so I’ll have to remember to act offended when someone tells me I’m pathetic… (hopefully it won’t happen very often!).

However, I think it’s a shame if words evolve to a place away from their original meaning, if they leave behind no synonyms to convey that original meaning. Such, I think, is the case with ‘literally’. I know of no word that I could use instead of ‘literally’, to convey the original meaning. To me, that’s a shame. Our language will lose something useful.

Given the absence of synonyms, I have no choice but to still use the word, but I can’t be sure how people are interpreting it. Moreover, those interpretations are a long way apart, given how distant the new meaning is from the original.

Anyway, here’s something else to enjoy:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/She-Literally-Exploded-Telegraph-22-Infuriating/dp/1845296753

Call a word “autological” if it describes itself. “Short” and “English” are autological. The opposite is “heterological”. “French” and “long” are heterological. Is “heterological” autological or heterological?

Language does move forward and can slightly change in meaning over time – so leave the poor footballer alone – I literally think you can literally use this rather ‘sticky’ word – literally in a variety of ways. Ok maybe a little on the overkill side.