On Sep 22, 8:31 am, Ace  wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:14:44 퍝, Paul Rudin
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >Ace  writes:
>
> >> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:47:41 퍝, Paul Rudin
> >>  wrote:
>
> >>>Ace  writes:
>
> >>>> My 25 min drive to the office isn't exactly what I'd call a 'commute> >>>> in any case.
>
> >>>Why not?
>
> >> Two reasons. One, it's a pleasant drive (or ride, but that takes an
> >> hour or more) mostly through very attractive countryside. Two, having
> >> worked in and around London for many years, sometimes commuting via
> >> rail/tube/bus for up to two hours each way, it just doesn't seem to be
> >> worthy of using the same name to describe it.
>
> >Shrug, that still fits within any reasonable definition of
> >"commute". Your enjoyment or otherwise, and the fact that there are
> >longer commutes, are irrelevant.
>
> By that definition anyone who doesn't actually live at their place of
> work commutes. "Reasonable" definitions may vary, depending on
> personal experience.
>

The term originally arose from those who would buy a season ticket
rather than individual journey tickets as they could then commute
their travel. Such people became known as commuters, and that term has
spread to all who travel regularly to the same place of work.

..d