So many people used 'literally' sarcastically and hyperbolically, that it has literally taken on the additional meaning in most dictionaries. :|

http://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-liter...

I'm fine with words gaining additional definitions due to how they are popular used, but when a word is defined as one thing, and the exact opposite of that same thing, and both definitions can be equally valid within the context of the same sentence, then that's literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Plenty of words are their own opposites. A few fun articles on this if you search it.

> Plenty of words are their own opposites.

There's a fat chance of that being true... uhm, I mean to say the opposite of "slim chance".

Interesting. Apparently they are called "Contronyms".

I thought only Arabic had those. I always thought it was stupid.

I will not claim it is intelligent. But, I also do not believe in language is made of intelligent design. Things evolve. Sometimes in clever ways. Sometimes in odd ways.

That said, most contronyms give absolutely no cognitive dissonance. That "to dust" something can mean to remove or to add something has rarely caused confusion. Only place I have ever seen it was in some old children's books, to be honest. Which is half the reason they are fun. Teaching kids contradictions is what keeps some of it interesting.

As someone pointed out to me recently, literally has had that meaning since at least when Shakespeare was pushing a quill around.

Relevant David Cross rant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ly1UTgiBXM