Language, like persuasion, is an art. It's an art that can be mangled, yes. (Just look at poor Miss Teen North Carolina for a classic language malfunction.) And as with any art, (unless you're a prodigy as Mozart was with music, as H.P. Lovecraft was with poetry, as Pablo Picasso was with painting), most likely you will have to practice to be good at the art of language, and subsequently the art of persuasion.

In orienting ourselves toward our affluent clientele, we must use language and speech powerfully.

Reading is the best thing you can do to expand your vocabulary.

However, a huge vocabulary doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be a great speaker. Oration is a different best altogether.

The next step in powerful oration, if you're not afflicted by the fear of public speaking, is having something to say.

And once you get over the fear of speaking and have something to say of importance or interest, then there's the next obstacle. . . the delivery.

My transcriptionist tells me I say 'In other words' a lot. I believe I do this for two reasons.

One reason I do this is that I'm always trying to deliver information in as many ways as I can so that I am able to gain the understanding of as many people as possible.

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.

There's a great new book out called 'Um. . . Slips, Stumbles and Verbal Blunders and What They Mean' by Michael Erard. One of the most interesting things I've read so far in 'Um. . .' is that this is a universal. All languages have their own version of 'um' (in Spain it's 'eh', in France 'euh') and the use of this filler has been around since at least as far back as the Ancient Egyptians and Greeks.

It's only been since the twentieth century that 'um. . .' has become unpopular with academics and teachers, most likely coinciding with television and radio.

'Um. . .' starts out in the offices of the Federal News Service. This is where the transcriptionists type out the news, political speeches, etc., that is 'of record' and appears as closed captions for hearing impaired.

The style guidelines of the FNS state that all of the 'umms' and 'uhs' and 'ahs' and 'ers' are left out, false starts of one or two words are left out, and partial words are left out. The one exception is: policymakers. . .everything a policymaker says is typed out verbatim.

This got me thinking about perception and our president's speech "disfluencies".

Some consider George W. 'down home' and 'one of the people' with his speech patterns and gaffes making him more accessible and affable. While others consider his blunders to be an indication of his 'lack of preparedness' and/or intelligence and a dangerous indication 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.