"it means done right." Actually, "articulate" means, "having or showing the ability to speak fluently and coherently". As such, my comments were on target. I have no idea what "done right" means. I mean, who decides that? Does that mean "construct sentences as taught in language class"?
It means conveying the information you want to in the most fluent and coherent way necessary - articulate. A sentence can reflect the rant of a raving lunatic, but it's still articulate because you're conveying your intention, meaning, it's done right.
Then my prior comment is on point. Assume I have a novel. In that novel, one of my characters, Mi Hui, has a first language which isn't English, has a very poor grasp of English, and is in America on vacation. Mi Hui is trying to tell another character, John, that Mi Hui's child was abducted in front of her five minutes ago. If Mi Hui speaks fluent and coherent English despite panicking, it will destroy the reader's suspension of disbelief (as well as hurt expression of issues such as alienation which she's feeling). You have my permission to use that novel as toilet paper, because it certainly isn't worth reading.
Articulate English and articulate sentences are two different things. We're talking about the latter, not the former. However, if you're writing is decent, then the author should be able to convey the panic in Mi Hui through articulate English, anyway. You don't have to write in block capitals or even formulate broken sentences to convey panic. On the contrary, in fact -- that's the cheap and lazy method. A great writer would be able to convey such emotions without the gimmicks.
The problem in bold. The "it" that all happens could mean "to whom he's talking". It could mean a number of things in relation to the sub-clause. I think it's a good place to throw in a folksy line about whatever "it" is. "...knows the precise date and time godzilla shit the president onto the whitehouse lawn." "...knows the precise date and time the world collectively stuffed its face into the toilet." "...knows the precise date and time Kennedy whipped his dick out of Marilyn Monroe and gave the whole country AIDS" etc.
I don't rely on broken sentences to convey that she is in panic. I have her use broken sentences because that is what is realistic. Being articulate isn't realistic for this character in this situation.
@Jack Asher : I do so like the idea of Godzilla shitting the President onto the Whitehouse lawn. Please, please tell me that's been done in a book or film somewhere.
I have to agree with this - although to who he is talking follows the grammatical rules in this sense, it grates upon my ears, and is something I feel would potentially detract from my reading, as I would go back to make sure that it is the correct word order that you are trying to achieve. Whereas, who he is talking to, feels perfectly natural. Having said that, that was upon initial reading, without the insight of the later character explanation. If the character's speech has been developed throughout the preceding sections of the book, to be 'affected', and somewhat posh, then this may just help to develop him further, as reading to who he is talking, makes me reach for the Etonian accent, as I read it internally. So, if I already had an impression of the speaker as 'posh', this would seem almost designed to enforce that impression! Just my two-pence worth!
