No, that does't quite max out the meanings of the word, even in english.
The literal meaning is almost never the full range of meaning of a word. It is the basic, most common-sense meaning with other meanings being derivatives of it.
verb
▸to take air into your lungs through your nose or mouth and let it out again more...
▸to bring other substances into your mouth or lungs as you breathe more...
▸to blow air from your mouth onto something more...
▸to say something very quietly more...
▸clothes that can breathe are made from cloth with very small holes that allow air in more...
▸if you let wine breathe, you open it a short time before you drink it so that the flavor improves more...
Of these, the first and possibly the third are the most basic (and therefore literal) meanings. The others are extensions and derivatives from that meaning.
So, if the point is that the verb is to be understood literally, those meanings are not relevant. It is pretty clear that the second and the last three points are not what the writer is referring to.
But again, what is the alternative meaning that you could apply to this verse?
An alternative meaning would not be a literal meaning.
All we are establishing here is a) what the literal meaning is, and b) that the literal meaning is not applicable to an incorporeal being such as God.
Therefore, the term is a figure of speech used to accommodate the incomprehensible to human understanding.
The technical term for this type of figure of speech is anthropomorphism i.e. to speak of God in terms applicable to a human being. It covers all references to God breathing, speaking, seeing, listening, using his eyes, ears, hands, arms, etc.
Does that mean that God is not aware of us because God lacks physical sense organs and does not communicate with us because he lacks the physical organs for producing sound?
Of course not.