I think the descriptivist vs prescriptivist debate often misses the point. Language shifts aren't bad in themselves but some language shifts reduce useful spec

I think the descriptivist vs prescriptivist debate often misses the point. Language shifts aren't bad in themselves but some language shifts reduce useful specificity in a language. Like if "literally" no longer means "literally", how do you precisely communicate "literally"? Language shifts can also impart the ability to communicate new things. Rather than an article that says "this now means X" or "this should mean Y so using it to mean X is wrong" I'd like an article that analyzes the functional gains and losses of these changes and whether they suggest resisting the change or not on that basis. It sounds like "perplexed" is a fine and common replacement for "nonplussed", although similarly it doesn't sound like nonplussed adds any meaning over "unimpressed". Is this the "Who is Taylor Swift dating now?" of grammarians?