> No, words have quite definite meanings.

Were that the case, “literally” would not literally mean both itself and its opposite.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally

Words change meaning frequently throughout history, depending on how they are (mis)used. Or they can change meaning depending on context or part of the country/world.

https://www.vox.com/2015/11/29/9806038/great-british-baking-...

Sometimes drastically.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/kc41mu/why_...

> Otherwise, they are not an aid to communication.

I do agree with you that it makes it harder, but communication does depend on more than just the words.

Literally not meaning literally is literally an example of the enshitification of language.

> the enshitification of language

Good example of words losing their meaning. “Enshittification” is barely an infant as a word and it has a very specific meaning, but people are already using to mean “something I dislike”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification

> Were that the case, “literally” would not literally mean both itself and its opposite.

It doesn't mean the opposite. People misuse it a lot in that way, but they are quite wrong.

Read the link and follow the definition. The “figurative”, “for emphasis” usage of literally was officially added to dictionaries, meaning it is official it means that, whether we like it or not. Whenever you tell people they are wrong for that usage of “literally”, you are now the wrong one.

You are advocating for prescriptivism, but descriptivism is a perfectly valid approach to language.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/descriptive-vs-presc...

We all use plenty of words by their “wrong” meaning, because they changed over time and before we were born.

That's actually not correct at all.

How is tributes to lords from vassals related to communication? Oh wait, you didn't mean that meaning of the word "aid"? But words only have one meaning...