Is this a grammar error?

[Mai Tran]

I recently come across this sentence in a book written in British English:
"We needed to take a cab to the hotel, so waited our turn."

It seems like a grammar error to me. The second clause needs a subject, and the sentence should have been written as:
"We needed to take a cab to the hotel, so [we] waited our turn."

When I check this sentence with Grammarly, it passes the sentence as correct, so I'm now wondering if it's something I'm not aware of. The author uses this structure repeatedly in the book, so it seems like a deliberate choice. I would appreciate it if someone could lend me their views on this.

[Ben Moore]

I’m pretty confident that that sentence is valid. It sort of carries over the subject from the first clause. It’s implied in the second. Does that make sense? I’d certainly write that sentence and wouldn’t bat an eyelid if I read it.

That said, English is a bizarre language so a lot of grammar and stuff is essentially just based on whether or not people accept it haha!

[Intuitive Catalyst]

I recently come across this sentence in a book written in British English:
"We needed to take a cab to the hotel, so waited our turn."

It seems like a grammar error to me. The second clause needs a subject, and the sentence should have been written as:
"We needed to take a cab to the hotel, so [we] waited our turn."

When I check this sentence with Grammarly, it passes the sentence as correct, so I'm now wondering if it's something I'm not aware of. The author uses this structure repeatedly in the book, so it seems like a deliberate choice. I would appreciate it if someone could lend me their views on this.

I would never accept such a sentence nor would I write such. I agree with your addition of 'we'. That sentence is colloquial thought written down. In other words, the author writes the way he/she thinks. I don't trust Grammarly too much. I use it mainly for punctuation and comparison with Scribens.

For example, I'm Caribbean-born but I think in French and Creole English but I write and speak in standard English depending with whom I'm communicating. If I wrote as I thought in Creole English, my sentences would be vastly different. Hope that helps.

[Juliet+1]

I think that sentence is fine. It does depend somewhat on who is saying the words. If it's a character in a novel and that's how s/he speaks, then it's correct. If it's a nonfiction book, perhaps someone narrating a travel adventure, then it's a little casual. But I still would not say that it's "wrong." Grammar is not that inflexible.

[unamilagra]

When it comes to marking errors for authors, it's important to keep in mind that authors are allowed creative liberty with their writing style in their novels. If you can tell that the author structured the sentence that way intentionally, then it shouldn't be considered an error, even if it might not pass muster a formal writing scenario (such as your review of the book when the time comes).

[Mai Tran]

I’m pretty confident that that sentence is valid. It sort of carries over the subject from the first clause. It’s implied in the second. Does that make sense? I’d certainly write that sentence and wouldn’t bat an eyelid if I read it.

That said, English is a bizarre language so a lot of grammar and stuff is essentially just based on whether or not people accept it haha!

Thank you for sharing. It does make sense in a way actually. It's good to know that it sounds normal to you.

[Mai Tran]

I would never accept such a sentence nor would I write such. I agree with your addition of 'we'. That sentence is colloquial thought written down. In other words, the author writes the way he/she thinks. I don't trust Grammarly too much. I use it mainly for punctuation and comparison with Scribens.

For example, I'm Caribbean-born but I think in French and Creole English but I write and speak in standard English depending with whom I'm communicating. If I wrote as I thought in Creole English, my sentences would be vastly different. Hope that helps.

Thank you, it does help immensely. I'm guessing the author probably wanted to have a more casual tone.

[Mai Tran]

I think that sentence is fine. It does depend somewhat on who is saying the words. If it's a character in a novel and that's how s/he speaks, then it's correct. If it's a nonfiction book, perhaps someone narrating a travel adventure, then it's a little casual. But I still would not say that it's "wrong." Grammar is not that inflexible.

Thank you! It's good to know that it sounds normal, if only a little casual.

[Mai Tran]

When it comes to marking errors for authors, it's important to keep in mind that authors are allowed creative liberty with their writing style in their novels. If you can tell that the author structured the sentence that way intentionally, then it shouldn't be considered an error, even if it might not pass muster a formal writing scenario (such as your review of the book when the time comes).

Absolutely. I would usually give the author a pass if the writing doesn't interfere with the flow and my understanding of the book, or if it's something a character says. This struture gives me pause though, so I'm wondering what other people feel about it.

[Intuitive Catalyst]

I would never accept such a sentence nor would I write such. I agree with your addition of 'we'. That sentence is colloquial thought written down. In other words, the author writes the way he/she thinks. I don't trust Grammarly too much. I use it mainly for punctuation and comparison with Scribens.

For example, I'm Caribbean-born but I think in French and Creole English but I write and speak in standard English depending with whom I'm communicating. If I wrote as I thought in Creole English, my sentences would be vastly different. Hope that helps.

Thank you, it does help immensely. I'm guessing the author probably wanted to have a more casual tone.

Cheers

[Nikolas Farmakis]

I think the sentence is wrong, and it requires an additon of 'we'. However, you can turn a blind eye on that error if the sentence is in dialogue, because it can be considered colloquial speech.

[Emidio Inocencio]

In fact there's a need to include the subject in the second clause. Since it is subordinated to the first. We cannot omit subjects in sentences ruled by subordination. That sentence could be considered correct in spoken language but in writen it its is incorrect.

[The Holy Grail]

It depends with the previous sentence(s) and the overall context. Sometimes, some words can be omitted if they were already previously mentioned. For example:

1. She dressed and ["she" can be added here, but it's not necessary] went to the pool. (Forgive the odd construction. )

[Robert Obikanyi]

It sounds incorrect to me. Perhaps because it's an independent clause. This technique is mostly used for dependent clauses like, "He shot the man before exiting the building."

[Tonia Freeman]

When it comes to marking errors for authors, it's important to keep in mind that authors are allowed creative liberty with their writing style in their novels. If you can tell that the author structured the sentence that way intentionally, then it shouldn't be considered an error, even if it might not pass muster a formal writing scenario (such as your review of the book when the time comes).

So why is it that authors are allowed creative liberty on a book but we as authors of the review are not allowed some creative liberties as well? Or at least not discounted the same points for a comma “error” as something more overt like a misspelling?