come on man let's go!

Not only is it better, but it's also correct.

Another choice would be to break it up.

"Come on, man. Let's go!"

Come on, man, let's go.

Come on, man. Let's go.

x2 everything said so far. "Man" is an independent clause, so it needs to be set off (one way or the other).

I agree with Chompers.

MookyMcD said:

x2 everything said so far. "Man" is an independent clause, so it needs to be set off (one way or the other).

Click to expand...

In this context 'man' is a vocative. It's a direct address to someone, albeit a general one.

Yep, Fivetoesten, Chompers is correct. We need to set off direct address in dialog with commas.

English speakers might speak differently from region to region but everyone follows the same writing rules. --s6

Fallen said:

In this context 'man' is a vocative. It's a direct address to someone, albeit a general one.

Click to expand...

I'd been taught that vocatives were, by definition, independent clauses. No? --Not trying to argue, this is 20 year-old book learnin'

chompers said:

Not only is it better, but it's also correct.

Click to expand...

alleycat said:

Another choice would be to break it up.

"Come on, man. Let's go!"

Click to expand...

fivetoesten, if you're looking for the grammatically correct answer only, both chompers and alleycat are correct because, as others have stated, "man" is a direct address (vocative case).

fivetoesten said:

Is that better with commas?

"Come on, man, let's go!"

Click to expand...

I see you have used an exclamation point in your original question. So, a bit more info may be necessary:

An additional consideration is the context and pacing within this scene. We know that short sentences speed the pace, while longer sentences slow the pace of a scene.

For instance--and think of a movie you might have seen with this scenario--one character is about to mix it up with another character. The first character's buddy grabs his arm and says, "Come on, man, let's go." He's attempting to reason and prevent the escalation of the confrontation, yes?

Now, another scenario: Time is of the essence--maybe the two are in the middle of a robbery, or are running from the police, etc.--and one character is trying to speed the other on his way. In that instance, you might have the character say, "Come on, man! Let's go!" The two sentences speed the pace and convey the necessary urgency.

The choice you make between the two grammatically correct answers will affect the pacing of your scene.

hth.

MookyMcD said:

I'd been taught that vocatives were, by definition, independent clauses. No? --Not trying to argue, this is 20 year-old book learnin'

Click to expand...

No problems. The comma is recognising that who is being addressed ie 'man', is loosely tied to what is being said: "Come on." (Come on, man.)

Peripheral material like this is usually set off with commas (eg vocative case, tags (he did, didn't he?) Interjections (oh, well, erm,) supplement clause etc (As a member of the congregation, I highly recommend...)).

Vocative case is just the name given to 'direct address forms' that do two things:

1) express speaker attitude (That's good, honey; you,you pig; you, you prat; hey, Jack, hi, Jil etc)

2) managing the direction of the discourse itself (what is being said to which person).

With the likes of interjections, there's the argument that the comma be dropped according to stress: oh, I suppose v oh I suppose.

Lol, context: she be a funny madam.

fivetoesten said:

What if my character talks that way? Describe regional characteristics outside of dialog and have everybody speak like Walter Cronkite?

Click to expand...

Your question is about punctuation, not about dialect, slang, or jargon.

No one speaks with punctuation, so 'talking that way' doesn't have anything to do with it. Punctuation is a convention of writing to help make one's meaning clear to readers.

Here's a really basic example to show what I mean:

1) Let's eat, Grandpa.

2) Let's eat Grandpa.

See how the punctuation changes the meaning and sense of the sentence? The words in these two versions would be spoken differently, with emphasis and intonation in different places. But they must be written as above so that the reader translates the words into the correct meaning.

This web page has more examples, some of them quite funny.

Terie said:

No one speaks with punctuation, so 'talking that way' doesn't have anything to do with it. Punctuation is a convention of writing to help make one's meaning clear to readers.

Click to expand...

, Terie. Well said, but not the best example. Grandmas taste better.

Fallen said:

No problems. The comma is recognising that who is being addressed ie 'man', is loosely tied to what is being said: "Come on." (Come on, man.)

Peripheral material like this is usually set off with commas (eg vocative case, tags (he did, didn't he?) Interjections (oh, well, erm,) supplement clause etc (As a member of the congregation, I highly recommend...)).

Vocative case is just the name given to 'direct address forms' that do two things:

1) express speaker attitude (That's good, honey; you,you pig; you, you prat; hey, Jack, hi, Jil etc)

2) managing the direction of the discourse itself (what is being said to which person).

With the likes of interjections, there's the argument that the comma be dropped according to stress: oh, I suppose v oh I suppose.

Lol, context: she be a funny madam.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I remembered everything about vocatives. I was just saying that I was instructed that a vocative is, inherently, an independent clause and must always be treated as such (i.e., set off).