We're all familiar with taboo words; not deemed to be offensive in polite society. But on reflection, I wonder if they divide into two groups: taboo words, and taboo concepts.

As an example of the first consider the offensive word n_gg_r. We have no difficulty saying that a person is a 'black' or an 'african-american'. The concept is in no way offensive. It's only the particular word that offends.

In contrast, we're offended by the c-word not just as a word, but as a concept. It's still offensive if you substitute some other word (say 'twat' or 'snatch') for the same concept. The only semi-proper way to express it is by a meticulously formal word (such as 'pudenda') or by a euphemistic phrase whose literal meaning is non-specific. And that is only semi-proper, at best.

Most (all?) of the taboo sex-words seem to fall into the latter category. For example, if you want a reasonably polite way to express the meaning of the f-word, your only choices are to use the formal 'copulate', or to use one of many circumlocutions, which have become quite familiar. (Old joke: why do they call it "sleeping together" when sleeping is not the relevant activity?)

Before progressing to some further thoughts about this, let me pause here for the moment and ask, "Does this distinction make sense?"

I agree that there is perhaps a distinction, but I would suggest that nigger represents a historic mindset that is offensive, rather than the word itself being a problem. Also, people in the black community will often call one another nigga and it is acceptable. My theory is that it is because the mindset of the person using the word is not in question. However, if I were to use the word myself to refer to someone, my mindset would be questioned, therefore rendering the work unacceptable.

For words with sexual meaning, and those words which label the corresponding body parts, I would say it is more a cultural problem. It is not acceptable to talk about private matters in such a casual way. There are circumstances where, for some people. the words you suggest are quite appropriate (I would think).

I'm not disagreeing with you in the least, CW, but my point is somewhat different. You're focusing on what it is that makes practicular words offensive; I'm focusing on the how one would determine, empirically, which class an offensive word belongs to. As you note, n_gg_r is offensive because, for historical reasons, the choice to use that particular suggests a mindset; the f-word is offensive because we are reluctant to speak of the concept itself.

If we were dealing with an offensive word that was unfamiliar to us (one in another language, for example), what might indicate to us which category it fell into? I'd think the indicia are two-fold: whether or not a simple direct and inoffensive term exists, and whether or not euphemisms abound. If people are comfortable with the concept (and only the word is taboo), their everyday speech would have a simple, direct term to expresses it without offense, and having that term, would have had no need to develop euphemistic circumlocutions. But if they are uncompfortable with speaking of the concept itself, then any word for it would be considered offensive, to a greater or lesser degree. No direct term would be socially acceptable, and the language would have evolved numerous euphemisms to express it.

I'd ask whether people agree that these two categories of "offensive words" are indeed distinct, and wwhether these would be valid tests to categorize a particular word?

Another test is that it seems to me that if a society considers a term offensive, it's very like that the society takes offense to any alternate terms for it. Only in extremely few cases is the concept fine but a particular word for it is taboo. In fact, there is only one such case I can think of: the word n_gg_r.

Can anyone think of another case?

Hmm - ok . . . what about bitch?

One of the things I find interesting about French-Canadian swearing is that while all the swear words are words for items used in the Catholic mass, some of them are considered very coarse and vulgar while others are part of polite conversation. Ciboire and chalice are considered crude, while hostie (the communion wafer) is analogous to 'damn'. The ones considered polite tend to have more variations and euphemisms.