Edit: you're all right, sanction has both meanings.
> Natural language has done that forever.
We've also "retired" words. On a large scale, as a matter of fact, so it's not really an argument against getting rid of "agile".
It still means both, at least as a verb.
And autoantonyms are not good. They're confusing and lead to confusion.
Thus, any word that exists in this vein is going to end up meaning what is forbidden and what is allowed.
One can sanction a country by only allowing it to trade oil, or one can sanction a country by forbidding it from trading food, clothes, and manufactured goods.
My Chambers dictionary suggests these alternatives: actually, really, absolutely.
It also says, "literally is in common use to intensify an idiom, and this is not incorrect".
My general rule is that usage defines meaning. If lots of people use literally as an idiom intensifier, then I'd be wrong to argue. However, my GCSE English teacher said that we need to consider the intended audience and form. Me saying, "They literally flew down the road" to my mates in the pub is fine. It is not fine in formal writing.
But I don’t like its use as a hyperbolic no-op.
"Pragmatic sanction, historically, a sovereign's solemn decree which addresses a matter of primary importance and which has the force of fundamental law"
It has just been corrupted in various ways. It's no longer only a sovereign's decree, but any authority. It doesn't necessarily have primary importance. And the force it carries depends on the authority.
I can't sanction that description I'm afraid.