Role of comma in this sentence

[Dominoes]

I just looked up the word "consituent" in the Oxford Dictionary. One of the definitions is: "a person who lives, and can vote in a constituency". Does the comma in the definition play an important part? If the comma were removed, would the meaning still be the same?

Thank you

 

[5jj]

I think it is incorrect. We need either no comma or this: A person who lives, and can vote, in a constituency. I prefer it without commas.

 

[Dominoes]

I think it is incorrect. We need either no comma or this: A person who lives, and can vote, in a constituency. I prefer it without commas.

I'm glad you said that. My initial thought was the same, but then I thought: "Surely, the dictionary can't be wrong!".

Thanks for your time

 

[emsr2d2]

With only the first comma it appears that the person must be 1) alive and 2) currently able to vote in a constituency.
2 would be difficult without 1.

 

[Tdol]

Could it be to distinguish constituents from non-resident (expat) voters?

 

[emsr2d2]

Could it be to distinguish constituents from non-resident (expat) voters?

With both commas, that's exactly how I would read it.

 

[SoothingDave]

Death is not a barrier to further voting in many of our fine cities.

 

[emsr2d2]

Death is not a barrier to further voting in many of our fine cities.

Well, being brain dead clearly isn't a barrier to becoming a serving politician. ;-)

 

[5jj]

Well, being brain dead clearly isn't a barrier to becoming a serving politician. ;-)

If I didn't know better, ems, I would suspect a soup[FONT=&quot]ç[/FONT]on of cynicism there.

 

[Tdol]

With both commas, that's exactly how I would read it.

Or someone who lives there but cannot vote- under-age or not a national.

 

[Dominoes]

Sorry, I'm totally lost now. I feel silly.

With only the first comma it appears that the person must be 1) alive and 2) currently able to vote in a constituency.

That is exactly what I thought the definition was saying.

Before I looked in the dictionary, I had an idea of what a constituent was. I thought: a) the person would have to live in the constituency b) the person could vote in the constituency. (A child living in the constituency wouldn't be considered a constituent because they wouldn't be old enough to vote.) Am I correct?

Having thought about it over and over again, I can't see why the sentence should contain any commas at all (unless they are just signifying pauses). :-?

 

[Dominoes]

With both commas, that's exactly how I would read it.

Without any commas, that's how I would read it.

 

[emsr2d2]

In full it would read: Someone who both lives in and is eligible to vote in a constituency.
With commas and all the words: Someone who lives in, and is eligible to vote in, a constituency.
Without the repetition of "in": Someone who lives, and is eligible to vote, in a constituency.

"Lives in" must simply mean "resides in". It is only common sense that someone must be alive in order to vote.

In the UK, your permanent place of residence must be the constituency in order to qualify to vote there. If you own, for example, a holiday home where you only stay for a couple of weeks of the year, you are not eligible to vote in the constituency where that house is located. You can only vote in the place that you live for the majority of the time.

 

[Dominoes]

Or someone who lives there but cannot vote- under-age or not a national.

If "and" were replaced with "or", I would read it like that.