Mdtryhht

I was engaged in some informal but I hope grammatical conversation with a friend who is less fluent in English than me (so I didn't want to confuse them!). It went:

• So why are you so upset?


• You really want to know?


• Sure!


• Well, you know how I was telling you how I sold my car?


• Yeah


• I was excited about driving up to Manchester...


• OK.


• But, I later realized, have no car.

Is "But, I later realized, have no car" grammatical?

I think maybe, and with the following reason.

"But, I later realized, have no car"? sounds better than "But I later realized, have no car". I think the former sounds better due to the grammar, and one answer for why that is, is that it's grammatical (rather than, say, more rhetorical or I'm not interested in their reply).

I am concerned with the elided "I" in what would be the independent clause "have no car", and so I'm guessing it may be grammatical because in the latter the phrase "I later realized" is parenthesized (so that the conditional conjunction 'but' belongs to the independent clause "[I] have no car"), if that's not a misunderstanding.

Or perhaps it's because the conjunction 'but' in the former, used, example need not be read as set off with a comma.

The question seems a difficult one, as wikipedia says:

the dropping of pronouns is generally restricted to very informal
speech and certain fixed expressions, and the rules for their use are
complex and vary among dialects and register

I would be asking for BrSE, at least foremostly.

I was excited about driving up to Manchester...

OK.

But, I later realized, have no car.

If we consider only the last line then, after removing the "parenthetical clause", we get "But have no car." This is clearly non-grammatical (though comprehensible).

However, if we consider the first line, and regard the two lines as simply being a single (though disjointed) sentence, we get "I was excited about driving up to Manchester but have no car." This is valid syntax and semantics.

Often in speech a perfectly valid sentence can get disjointed in this fashion, especially when the listener interjects an "OK" or some such to acknowledge his comprehension. Within reason this doesn't affect the validity of the overall statement.

I am willing to bet you imagined something like below but didn't type it out as such because is quite esoteric outside of train-of-thought writing (disclaimer: I am including the book here merely as an example):

"But I -- I later realized -- have no car."

There should be 2 "I"s; it is a interjected independent clause, the subject does not carry over.

Why does it seem okay with the comma, but not without? When you have two parallel clauses with the same subject, you can drop the subject from the second one.

I had a book I was reading, but left it on the airplane.

I was excited about driving up to Manchester, but have no car.

When you add an interjection, it's still grammatical.

I was excited about driving up to Manchester but, I later realized, have no car.

Now, in dialog, when somebody interrupts that sentence, you still might be able to argue that it's grammatical:

I was excited about driving up to Manchester ...

OK

... but, I later realized, have no car.

On the other hand, if you have a main clause and a dependent clause with the same subject, you cannot leave the subject off the dependent clause. The following are ungrammatical. (Asterisks indicate ungrammaticality.)

*I told him would drive him home.

*I realized have no car.

So if I later realized is not an interjection (which it isn't unless you put a comma after the but), the whole thing is ungrammatical:

*I was excited about driving up to Manchester, but I later realized, have no car.

Without the first part of the interrupted sentence, "I was excited about driving up to Manchester," the second half of the interrupted sentence, "but, I realized, have no car" is ungrammatical whether or not there is a comma after the but.