[lldbg]

Surely meaning is foremost dictated by context? English does not have a context free grammar.

I can say the actual n-word without meaning to enflame or diminish - it is very easy in fact: take a sentence where I would have used the literal n-word, and replace it with the actual n-word.

[kenjackson]

But the existence of the “n-word” as the less inflammatory alternative always draws into question why you’d use the actual word. In most cases with the example you give, the use of the actual word is probably much more offensive.

That said I think there are a few places where the use is acceptable, but it’s not common and those uses almost never get called out anyways (so it is generally understood).

[foldr]

>English does not have a context free grammar.

Pedantic note: the 'context' in context free grammar has no relation to the kind of context you're talking about here. It's a very technical notion.

[DarkWiiPlayer]

We're talking about the linguistic concept of grammar, not the mathematical one, which makes a huge difference here.

[foldr]

As a linguist, I can assure you that there is no 'linguistic' concept of a context-free grammar as distinct from the mathematical concept.

A language being non-context-free just means that the string language doesn't fall within a certain class. It in fact took quite a while to show conclusively that English was not context-free; it's far from obvious.

None of this has anything to do with 'context' in the sense we're talking about here.