Should there be a comma before a person's name midsentence when you're addressing them? [duplicate]
This question already has an answer here:
Is vocative comma rule vanishing?
1 answer
Take the following sentence I found myself typing in an email today:
Thanks for the update, Mark, good to hear.
That first comma had me hesitating for an embarrassing length of time. Consider the alternative:
Thanks for the update Mark, good to hear.
Honestly both look strange to me now that I'm overthinking it. Is there a rule I can defer to so I can make this easy and stop thinking about it?
punctuation
marked as duplicate by tchrist♦ Jan 3 at 23:46
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
This question already has an answer here:
Is vocative comma rule vanishing?
1 answer
Take the following sentence I found myself typing in an email today:
Thanks for the update, Mark, good to hear.
That first comma had me hesitating for an embarrassing length of time. Consider the alternative:
Thanks for the update Mark, good to hear.
Honestly both look strange to me now that I'm overthinking it. Is there a rule I can defer to so I can make this easy and stop thinking about it?
punctuation
marked as duplicate by tchrist♦ Jan 3 at 23:46
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
This question already has an answer here:
Is vocative comma rule vanishing?
1 answer
Take the following sentence I found myself typing in an email today:
Thanks for the update, Mark, good to hear.
That first comma had me hesitating for an embarrassing length of time. Consider the alternative:
Thanks for the update Mark, good to hear.
Honestly both look strange to me now that I'm overthinking it. Is there a rule I can defer to so I can make this easy and stop thinking about it?
punctuation
This question already has an answer here:
Is vocative comma rule vanishing?
1 answer
Take the following sentence I found myself typing in an email today:
Thanks for the update, Mark, good to hear.
That first comma had me hesitating for an embarrassing length of time. Consider the alternative:
Thanks for the update Mark, good to hear.
Honestly both look strange to me now that I'm overthinking it. Is there a rule I can defer to so I can make this easy and stop thinking about it?
This question already has an answer here:
Is vocative comma rule vanishing?
1 answer
punctuation
punctuation
asked Jan 3 at 21:10
temporary_user_name
8081820
8081820
marked as duplicate by tchrist♦ Jan 3 at 23:46
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by tchrist♦ Jan 3 at 23:46
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Yes, you'd want a comma before Mark. It's the vocative case.
The comma after "Mark" makes a run-on sentence, however. Assuming the subject is understood, "good to hear" stands on its own. It would still be better to be explicit about the subject. So the whole thing would be better written as, "Thanks for the update, Mark. That's good to hear." Alternatively, it could be written as, "Thanks for the update, Mark; that's good to hear."
Please don't answer duplicates.
– tchrist♦
Jan 3 at 23:46
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, you'd want a comma before Mark. It's the vocative case.
The comma after "Mark" makes a run-on sentence, however. Assuming the subject is understood, "good to hear" stands on its own. It would still be better to be explicit about the subject. So the whole thing would be better written as, "Thanks for the update, Mark. That's good to hear." Alternatively, it could be written as, "Thanks for the update, Mark; that's good to hear."
Please don't answer duplicates.
– tchrist♦
Jan 3 at 23:46
add a comment |
Yes, you'd want a comma before Mark. It's the vocative case.
The comma after "Mark" makes a run-on sentence, however. Assuming the subject is understood, "good to hear" stands on its own. It would still be better to be explicit about the subject. So the whole thing would be better written as, "Thanks for the update, Mark. That's good to hear." Alternatively, it could be written as, "Thanks for the update, Mark; that's good to hear."
Please don't answer duplicates.
– tchrist♦
Jan 3 at 23:46
add a comment |
Yes, you'd want a comma before Mark. It's the vocative case.
The comma after "Mark" makes a run-on sentence, however. Assuming the subject is understood, "good to hear" stands on its own. It would still be better to be explicit about the subject. So the whole thing would be better written as, "Thanks for the update, Mark. That's good to hear." Alternatively, it could be written as, "Thanks for the update, Mark; that's good to hear."
Yes, you'd want a comma before Mark. It's the vocative case.
The comma after "Mark" makes a run-on sentence, however. Assuming the subject is understood, "good to hear" stands on its own. It would still be better to be explicit about the subject. So the whole thing would be better written as, "Thanks for the update, Mark. That's good to hear." Alternatively, it could be written as, "Thanks for the update, Mark; that's good to hear."
answered Jan 3 at 23:05
trw
28828
28828
Please don't answer duplicates.
– tchrist♦
Jan 3 at 23:46
add a comment |
Please don't answer duplicates.
– tchrist♦
Jan 3 at 23:46
Please don't answer duplicates.
– tchrist♦
Jan 3 at 23:46
Please don't answer duplicates.
– tchrist♦
Jan 3 at 23:46
add a comment |