flames erupted

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "flames erupted" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to describe a sudden and intense outbreak of fire, often in a dramatic or vivid context. Example: "As the fire spread through the dry forest, flames erupted, consuming everything in their path."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

19 human-written examples

"When it fell, it seemed to fall very slowly, then the smoke and flames erupted.

The New York Times

"Wow," said the students, moving back as flames erupted from a tiny ember that an instructor created with friction.

The New York Times

Mr. Kourakos, the cobbler, was working in the back of his shop when flames erupted next door.

The New York Times

He pulled over and exited the vehicle "when suddenly massive flames erupted from under the hood," destroying the Jeep.

The New York Times

Two other overturned vehicles were visible nearby as orange flames erupted from an exploding car, prompting several bystanders to duck down in alarm.

The New York Times

Official accounts that they were fired hours before the flames erupted, or that they fell harmlessly into a puddle, were ignored or derided.

The New York Times

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

41 human-written examples

When Hrithik first appears onstage, in a black fringed outfit covered with sparkles, flames erupt on either side of him.

The New Yorker

Several companies have been chastened by amateur postings of flames erupting from Dell's laptops or of cable-TV repairmen asleep on the sofa.

The Economist

And at times, without any notice, bright flames erupt and suddenly surround the earth-moving equipment as workers shift debris and oxygen flows to meet combustible materials.

The New York Times

Every now and again, flames erupt on sleepy side-streets as vandals set ablaze a car or motorcycle belonging to a triad member.

The New York Times

Flames erupt from the center-field backdrop, fireworks explode, and the out-of-town scoreboard erases all the numbers, replacing them with another one-word statement, the only one that matters to the team atop the N.L. West: Victory.

The New York Times - Sports

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "flames erupted" to vividly describe a sudden and intense outbreak of fire, especially when emphasizing the visual impact of the event. For example, "Flames erupted from the engine, engulfing the car in seconds."

Common error

While "flames erupted" is acceptable in news and descriptive writing, avoid it in highly formal or technical reports where a more neutral term like "fire started" or "combustion initiated" might be more appropriate.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "flames erupted" functions as a vivid descriptive element within a sentence, typically acting as the main verb to illustrate a sudden and intense outbreak of fire. As Ludwig AI confirms, this usage is grammatically correct. Examples show its usage in news reports and descriptive contexts.

Expression frequency: Common

Frequent in

News & Media

75%

Wiki

12%

Science

5%

Less common in

Formal & Business

2%

Encyclopedias

2%

Academia

4%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "flames erupted" is a grammatically sound and frequently used expression to vividly describe the sudden outbreak of fire. Ludwig AI confirms its correctness and common usage. While predominantly found in news and media contexts, it serves to create a strong visual image of intensity and immediacy. For formal or technical writing, consider more neutral alternatives like "fire started". The phrase effectively conveys a dramatic event, instantly painting a picture of a fire's rapid and forceful beginning.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

fire broke out

This alternative is a common and straightforward way to describe the start of a fire.

fire ignited

This alternative focuses on the act of something catching fire.

blaze started

This alternative uses "blaze" to emphasize the intensity of the fire.

inferno began

This alternative implies a large and uncontrolled fire.

conflagration erupted

Replaces "flames" with "conflagration" to describe a large destructive fire.

combustion initiated

A more technical and formal way to describe the start of a fire.

a firestorm arose

Implies a particularly intense and rapidly spreading fire.

fire burst forth

This alternative is slightly more dramatic and emphasizes the suddenness of the fire.

fire sparked

Focuses on the initial cause or moment of ignition.

the blaze flared up

Describes a sudden increase in the intensity of a fire that already exists.

FAQs

How can I use "flames erupted" in a sentence?

You can use "flames erupted" to describe a sudden and intense outbreak of fire. For example, "Suddenly, "flames erupted" from the building's windows."

What are some alternatives to "flames erupted"?

Some alternatives include "fire broke out", "fire ignited", or "blaze started", depending on the context.

Which is correct, "flames erupted" or "fire erupted"?

"Flames erupted" is more specific and vivid, focusing on the visual aspect of the fire. "Fire erupted" is also correct, but more general. Both are acceptable depending on the desired emphasis.

What's the difference between "flames erupted" and "a fire started"?

"Flames erupted" suggests a sudden and visually striking outburst of fire, while "a fire started" is a more neutral and general statement about the beginning of a fire. The first is more dramatic and sudden, the second can be slower and more gradual.