Over the past 2 decades, a shift has taken place in the language of education. The most prominent semantic marker of this shift is the increase in the use of the word learning and the subsequent decrease in the use of the word education. This short paper contends that the very language educators use to speak and write about education makes certain arguments and lines of thinking possible and, consequently, makes others far more difficult. The "game of language" and the "game of education" are played differently. Herein lies the danger of the "new language of learning." It allows a way to talk about education that misconstrues what education is about. This paper contends that education is, in a fundamental and even a structural sense, a difficult process that can be made easier by an educational relationship, not merely meeting the needs of the learner. It defines the educational relationship in terms of three interlocking processes: trust without ground (learners willing to take a risk); transcendental violence (teachers asking the difficult questions); and responsibility without knowledge (teachers taking responsibility for the "subjectivity" of the student). It is this educational relationship that makes education possible. (Contains end notes and 25 references.) (WFA)