The authors attempt to create paraphilosophical discourse by exploring the nature of language. It is suggested that language, first, is not a subject of linguistics and, second, is older than man and society. There is every reason to talk about the interdisciplinary nature of language learning, which relates it to the field of philosophy. The study discusses some issues of psycholinguistics (suggestion) and various interpretations of the concept myth within the framework of the stated topic. According to the authors, given the suggestive effect of the speech, one can raise the question of the subjectivity of the individual to whom it is directed. Even more broadly: are people who speak any language always subjects? The authors believe that the object of suggestive influence cannot be a subject, as a trained animal cannot be, but the process of language acquisition by children is training. The role of trainers is played by parents, relatives, teachers and other people, who themselves, at one time, were the objects of training. It turns out that there is training but no trainer for humankind. In this case, the question is: is it possible to speak of the subjectlessness of language as a source of suggestion?The assumption is made that people act as a speech machine to pronounce everything that can be said in a particular language regardless of objective reality. In other words, utterances may not be true. An excursion is made into the prescientific era of humankind when the mythological worldview was dominant, and the arguments for and against the fantastic and real nature of the myth are presented.