British spelling of “tyres” suggests that all usages might be acceptable in British syntax, but all sound ridiculous in American usage. Like some teacher is lazily scabbing material from a British source.
Wherefore is this “book” or “CD” you speak of?
I only use online dictionaries these days…
For this “intransitive” I don’t understand…
All I know is that the passage the spelling is taken from is a story about a hit and run car accident - so freewheeling doesn’t make sense in either meaning or context
As to “blaze a trail” - this would be my first thought, failing that a blaze of colour / emotion / anger or similar.
Neither seem to fit when it talks about driving a car on a road…
One of my perennial bugbears about the teaching of composition writing in my kid’s school is that they get way too hung up on trying to use “good” words, when they have little understanding of the meanings - and all too often they use words in weird contexts.
Native speaker of pretty much standard British English (RP).
Singaporean English is sometimes quirky, I’m not sure whether to treat it as a different dialect, but to me these sound like a non-native speaker making mistakes.
Wrong meaning. First, a person blazes a trail, not an inanimate object. The literal meaning is to mark a new trail through a forest with “blazes” (cuts or paint marks) on the trees. The metaphorical meaning is to be a pioneer, to do be the first to do groundbreaking work.
Probably wrong meaning for an accident, but needs more context
Agree with you
I would say “the wail of a siren” or “the wail of sirens”, both singular wail. “Wails” is not wrong, but sounds odd. Leaving out “a” is wrong for singular siren.
You’ve pretty much nailed it here - and I’m reluctant to call it out on two fronts -
Firstly “I never learnt me no grammar” at school - seriously, the only parts of grammar I can remember from my schooling are verb, noun and adjective. All else was about contextual reading, literary devices and such. So I don’t have the requisite knowledge to “argue good grammar”.
And secondly, I am a native speaker, but am a visitor here - if you’re familiar with Singaporean English then you’re likely familiar with the term AMDK - which is the last way I need to come across to my kid’s teacher.
It’s your decision how to deal with the politics, but I did not intend to undermine your certainty about what’s correct here - I’m totally confident that none of these are attributable to the Singaporean dialect - they are just mistakes.
Can’t wait to hear from th OP about his contact with the teacher.
It reminds me of a time in 7th grade. A student who was an enthusiastic skier turned in a paper that included this analogy: “the skis went through the powder like a knife through butter.” The teacher insisted that this was not a proper analogy and a class spent the rest of the hour discussing what was and wasn’t a proper analogy. And arguing for the knife through butter thing.
Back to the school: I hope you are looking for a new one.
No. To “blaze a trail (or path, if you prefer)” means to mark it in some fashion. It used to mean marking trees by cutting chips out of them (or blazing them) to mark a trail. It’s probably expanded to include any sort of trail markings. So by definition, tires could be considered to have ‘blazed’ a road, but it’s awkward usage and certainly not something I’ve read prior to this thread.
‘Blazing down the rough cement’ would be understandable figurative language, though a little incongruous. ‘Blazed the rough cement’ sounds like the tires are doing something to the cement, just doesn’t work.
Correct, and if Thudlow Boink’s dictionary does not give the literal meaning, it’s just a poor dictionary - it’s certainly not a situation where the literal meaning is lost in the mists of time and only the metaphor remains. A freewheeling cyclist proceeds easily without the effort of turning the pedals, hence the metaphor for unrestrained, carefree etc.