Language is an art. Persuasion is too. Of course, both can also be mangled. As with any art, most likely you'll have to practice to be good with language and subsequently, persuasion.

As always, we orient ourselves toward working with the affluent. To best serve us in this respect, we must use language and speech powerfully.

The more you read, the bigger your vocabulary.

But having a huge vocabulary is only one part of speaking well. The act of oration is an entirely different set of skills.

One of the biggest fears people face, is the fear of public speaking. And if you can get over that, the next step is having something of interest to say.

The next obstacle. . . the delivery.

I've been told that I say 'in other words' a lot when I do my seminars and conference calls.

Part of the reason I do this is that I want to explain myself fully and so I deliver information in as many ways as I can think of.

I also do this because I don't use the filler words 'um' or 'uh' and 'in other words' is taking the place of that in my language patterns.

In his new book, 'Um. . . Slips, Stumbles and Verbal Blunders and What They Mean,' Michael Erard discusses 'um' as a universal language filler. In Spain they say 'eh' and in France it's 'euh' and Mr. Erard suggests that this language filler has been around at least since Ancient Egypt and Greece.

As of late, probably since the advent of television and radio, 'um' has fallen out of favor and is seen as more of an impediment than simple filler.

The book starts out in the offices of the Federal News Service with the people who transcribe for closed captions.

At the FNS, the transcriptionists are given style guidelines: 'um', 'uh', 'ah' and 'er' are all left out, as are false starts of one or two words and partial words. The one exception for all of these rules is that absolutely everything a policymaker is typed out.

With this in mind, I skipped to the chapter on President Bush, most famous for his malapropisms. It's a very interesting take on how perception is really in the eye of the beholder.

Perception is so fluid: while some consider the president 'one of the people' and 'down to earth' because of his blunders and gaffes, others perceive his mangling of the English language a total lack of intelligence or preparedness and indicative of a 'disconnect with reality'.

Whichever side you're on, some of these gaffes are incredibly funny. (See: 'Bushisms')

If every word you uttered were recorded and transcribed, what kinds of patterns do you think you'd find? Pay attention to the way you and others talk, looking for the ums, ahs, false starts, gaffes and blunders you make.

Language is a critical part of persuasion and the ums, uhs, and other fillers 'say something' to your prospect when you speak. Keep that in mind when you are persuading the affluent.