Abstraction works only with strong context. A few symbols in an equation are a miracle of conciseness, but meaningful only after the symbols, operators and formal system are defined.

I never claimed otherwise. I think in fact that there are two forms of context—didactic and mandatory.

Didactic context is personal, the context required for or used by a particular person in order to conceptualize and build confidence with a set of concepts (and their associated syntax, though it's close to meaningless so long as it doesn't get in your way too much).

Mandatory context is more like a compact notion of why and how some mechanism is applied. For instance, you might bootstrap homology using point-set topology (educational context) and then enhance it using algebraic topology. Eventually, perhaps, the mandatory context is that homology is a measure of non-exactness of chain complexes and this concept can be lifted from its base context and presented wherever exactness is an interesting measure.

Point being—language hardly exists in a vacuum. Good language invokes powerful concepts in an efficient manner and allows you to construct arguments using them. Good arguments can link seemingly disparate concepts with ease.