Translation:The legs are normal and the feet small.
Sometimes you can omit words in order to avoid unnecessary repetition:
Die Beine sind normal und die Füße (sind) klein. = The legs are normal and the feet (are) small.
Cf. Peter liest ein Buch und (er) isst einen Apel. = Peter reads a book and (he) eats an apple.
It's the same in German and in English. It's just a matter of style: you don't have to omit those words, but it sounds better.
No, THIS isn't an example of something that is the same in English! In English you can leave out a repeated noun (subject), but it sounds very awkward (even if still understandable) if you omit the verb! You can say, "The legs are normal and sunburned", or, "The legs are normal and the feet are, too", but saying, "The legs are normal and the feet small" is just like saying, "The legs are normal and the garden green"!! Sorry, but it doesn't work in English!!
There IS a literary device sometimes used for special emphasis, but it is awkward in spoken language, where you could WRITE -- WITH proper punctuation -- "The legs are normal; the feet, small; the hands, worn; and the lips, puckered." Parallel construction works with the written word, but spoken, it must be delivered VERY carefully!
As written, this is NOT a proper English sentence!
It may not be a "proper" English sentence but it is still used, albeit not that often. Both the original sentence and your "garden green" example make perfect sense to a native speaker.
For example, if you complain at a restaurant, you might say "the cuttlery was dirty, the food cold. It maybe sounds slightly archaic or poetic, but to flat out say that it doesn't work is wrong.
Well, you're right, of course -- we all understand it. But I suspect, as spoken language, it's always a 'mistake" -- the result of a mid-thought change to a sentence and we listeners fill in the missing word. After all, English is very 'plastic', and structure is not particularly important to comprehension. In that restaurant with lousy service, I bet we would all understand if someone said, "Slow, cold food, rude, dirty silverware. What's going on? Pay? AND high prices! For this?
Wanna buy a computer?
Is it a correct english sentence?
Still it was used by a native NYer.
I dont say you should talk like that but some people just do omit verbs.
I would really say the second verb like you but those sentences are perfectly correct if you remove all that unnecessery commas,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
A contraction is much different than an omission! "Wanna" IS the verb! And, in context, that NYer MIGHT have said, "Buy a computer?" and be fully understood - leaving out the (relevant) verb ("buy" is still there, of course). But he would NOT have said, "Jim's gonna wait on line and you the red light", would he? And THAT, last, is the equivalent English sentence!
Funny I've got it after another example. There I misread "Deine Beine sind normal.."
Then it all of a sudden got sense. Words can be ommited only in sentences where everything is clear.
eg You have right and Peter apple and Klara Petra and a spider a mouse and the cat a dog and the waterfall fall and the sun shine. Technically right but awkward so everybody who has a problem with this sentence try reading Deine instead of Die.
In English, one should insert a comma if a repeated verb is omitted. "The legs are normal and the feet, small". I don't know if this is expected in German.
Edit: Plus, I think since it's two complete sentences separated by 'and', it should have a comma before the 'and,' so "The legs are normal, and the feet, small"?
I am a grammar and comma fanatic, but I am not sure that you would have to have a comma after feet (in English). As for what you said in your edit, they are NOT two complete sentences. "The legs are normal" is a complete sentence, but "The feet small" is not a complete sentence. Just because "are" is assumed to be there does not mean that it is, in fact, there. A similar thing happens when you omit the subject. "He reads a book and he eats an apple" needs a comma ("He reads a book, and he eats an apple") because it is two complete sentences: "He reads a book" and "He eats an apple". However, if you leave out the second "he", even though it is assumed to be there, things change. "He reads a book and eats an apple" does NOT need a comma because it is NOT two complete sentences: "He reads a book" is a complete sentence, but "Eats an apple" is not a complete sentence. Overall, you would not need a comma before the "and" in that sentence.
You can put the comma after feet, but, as with most comma usage, it's a style thing, not a hard rule. When leaving out the repeated verb, it comes down the pause the writer intends. Personally, I think it's weird without the pause and comma. I'm not sure the case of leaving out the repeated subject is the same as leaving out the repeated verb. The former, I would think of as, "He [does x] and [does y]", rather than as omitting the repeated subject, but certainly I could be wrong!