"You work with Neha."
Translation:तुम नेहा के साथ काम करो।
तुम नेहा के साथ काम करो। is an imperative sentence (denoting a command or a request) while तुम नेहा के साथ काम करते होI is declarative (implying something general or habitual). The two are translated in the same way in English unless the imperative one carries more force in which case it ends in an exclamation mark.
It can be either.
Teacher: [distributing papers] You work with Neha. [...] You come over here and sit by the window. [...] You share this one with Peter. [...] You two, work together. [...] You, shut up or get out.
Simple present -
Peter: [recovering from amnesia] Who do I work with?
Julia: You work with Neha.
No, in English it could be "You, come over here," but the comma in the written language and the pause in the spoken language are absolutely essential, because of our lack of a morphologically distinct imperative in English. I believe you see the same phenomenon in a number of other languages without a distinct imperative.
It is an imperative sentence if it's given as a translation of तुम नेहा के साथ काम करो।. In English, the subject is generally omitted in an imperative sentence but that doesn't mean including it makes it a declarative sentence. A couple examples should help:
I will go attend to customers and you work with Neha.
No, you work with Neha!
Again, that's not what I asked.
Do you think the following conversation has an error? If yes, what is it?
A: I will go attend to customers and you work with Neha.
B: No, you work with Neha!
And if a Hindi translation helps,
A: मैं जाकर ग्राहकों को देखता हूँ और तुम नेहा के साथ काम करो।
B: नहीं, तुम नेहा के साथ काम करो!
Do you mean that the dialogue should look like the following?
A: I will go attend to customers and you, work with Neha.
B: No, you, work with Neha!
I see! Well, your suggestion of using commas after "you" in those sentences is problematic for at least two reasons. First, using the comma shifts the emphasis in ways that wouldn't be reflected in speech and second, it alters the grammar of the commands. Allow me to explain.
The sentence "No, you work with Neha!", is in opposition to A's command, and hence carries a contrastive tone, which is indicated by emphasizing "you". The emphasis on "you" only serves to reflect that contrast, because B doesn't have to get A's attention before commanding A, and hence a comma is not required after "you". In fact, A doesn't have to get B's attention either before uttering the command and hence the first sentence also goes without a comma after "you". Basically, they don't need to address each other when they are already in a conversation. I am also curious as to how you're okay with the Hindi translation not having the commas, because the semantics should stay more or less the same on translation, but having commas in only the English sentences imparts a small but significant semantic difference across the two pairs of sentences.
On to grammar, the command "Work with Neha!" has an implicit subject, and "You work with Neha" (which, by the way, you don't consider a command yet but read on) has an explicit subject. Now, if a comma is inserted between "You" (subject) and "work" (verb), resulting in "You, work with Neha!", "You" no longer remains the subject of the sentence (although it refers to the subject, the same subject that the sentence without the comma did) because "You" is now a vocative, and the subject of the sentence is once again implicit. In other words, if the subject in "You, work with Neha!" is written explicitly, you'll get "You [vocative], you [subject] work with Neha!". It's a general rule in English not to have a comma between the subject of a sentence and the verb. Also, imperative sentences generally lack an explicit subject, but in English, any sentence, any independent clause can be written in the form of "Subject+Verb", something that doesn't work with the kind of construction that you are suggesting.
Summing up, using a comma after the subject of an imperative sentence especially in the context of the two sentences that I have been using in this discussion introduces both semantic and grammatical problems.
First, I agreed with This_Is_Roshan that the sentence "you work with Neha" can't be imperative. Then I read your comment, thought about it for a while and came up with the following observations:
1) if I switch to my mother tongue (French), the difference you highlighted between the vocative and the subject becomes pretty obvious: "you work with Neha" = "TU travailles avec Neha", whereas "you, work with Neha" = "TOI, travaille avec Neha". Two slightly different words in French whereas English uses "you" in both cases, so it's harder to spot the difference.
2) If I select a verb that is conjugated differently in the imperative and the indicative simple present, I can't make a grammatically correct sentence in French by combining the subject + the imperative verb. However, it seems to work in English. E.g. "you be nice" sounds like a correct sentence to me, whereas the same sentence in French is definitely incorrect.
So, if a sentence like "you be nice" is fine indeed, that would imply that "you work with Neha" may well be an imperative sentence in English and that it is possible to combine the subject + the imperative verb (unless "you be" would be an exception, not a rule). If that's the case, my mind is blown ^^