Very interesting question. The key here is whether you are using an actual verb or the noun version of the verb. "to use" (pronounced "yooze") is the basic form of the verb. "using" (pronounced "yoozing") is one form that can be used to refer to the action, but is not quite a noun. "use" (pronounced yoos) is the pure noun form of this verb. So, for the regular verb or the "-ing" form referring to the action, you use ADVERBS to modify it. The "yoos" form is a NOUN, therefore you must use ADJECTIVES with it instead. The ADJECTIVE form of the adverb "continually" is "continual". Be careful here. "continued" has a slightly DIFFERENT meaning. "continued use" can mean continuing to use something from NOW into the FUTURE. "continual use" on the other hand can refer to frequent, incessant use during any time period in the PAST, PRESENT or FUTURE. It's meaning derives from the concept of "continuous", or doing something virtually "non-stop". "continued use" carries the nuance of PROCEEDING to use something FROM HERE ON OUT. if you wanted to use "continued" with the VERB form or "use", you would get "continuing to use alcohol will..." "continual use" carries the nuance of INCESSANT use at some time. Now, I must also admit to you that many English speakers won't even bother with this distinction anymore and may use either of the words arbitrarily for any situation, but at times misuse may make you sound foreign. In the given sentence, I think the most correct option is: "Continual use of alcohol and tobacco creates a neurological dependency in the user." Here's an example where you could use "continued": "Continued use of alcohol and tobacco from here on WILL create a neurological dependency in your brain."

[1]"X caused Y" = X resulted in Y. X was the reason Y occurred. [2]"X are caused by Y" = instances or cases of Y can result in X. X is sometimes or generally caused by Y. [3]"X caused by Y" = incomplete sentence. This entire clause is a subject you are preparing to talk about. In other words, "X caused by Y" is a specific subset of X that satisfy the condition of having been caused by Y, and you have something to say about this specific subset. Your original sentence is effectively describing a subject, and you haven't said anything about it yet. For example: (SUBJECT) [IDEA CONCERNING SUBJECT] (MEANS/METHOD) >>(Many accidents on the roads caused by incautious drivers) can be avoided by (passing such and such a law.) What you are probably trying to do is state a simple fact, that is example [2] from above: >>"Many accidents on the roads //ARE// caused by incautious drivers." Here, (Many accidents on the roads) is made into the subject because of the verb "to be" (ARE) that comes after it. The problem in the original sentence is there is effectively NO VERB. "cause" by itself is a verb, BUT when you use it in the form of "caused by", it functions NOT as a verb, but as a simple DESCRIPTION. When you want to connect a SUBJECT with a DESCRIPTION, you have to use a verb like "TO BE". (is/are/was/etc.) Sentence 2 is grammatically correct but I wouldn't use "pierce into" unless the light was shining through holes in a curtain, cracks in some blinds, or something. If they're unobstructed, regular windows, the light would simply "shine" (past tense: "shone") into the room. Sentence 3: just put "Please" in FRONT of your request: "...please give me shoes of a larger size." It's also more natural to say "a larger size". Sentence 4: "middle of" is almost ALWAYS used with "in". You need to add "a" to "nightmare" OR make it plural. "a nightmare" is the most natural though. You use "at" for POINTS in time or space like "at midnight" or "at the midpoint of the bridge."

italki is "a" great instument... "a" means one, as in: one example of a great instrument one of many great instruments Unless you are trying to say "Italki is the greatest (best) instrument for learning english." Oddly enough, "tool" might sound better because "instrument" sounds too much like a tangible object or piece of equipment. You could also refer to it as a "website" or "language exchange" or something. "Our house was ignited by lightning." "Our house burned down from a lightning strike." More natural than "ignited by" would be: "Our house was set on fire by lightning." or "...hit/struck by lightning and set on fire." Third sentence is correct but pretty vague. Don't know the details behind what you are trying to convey, so can't improve upon it.

"She wants to go to the zoo." Is stating a simple fact about something she wants to do right now. 她（想/要）去动物园 "She would like to go to the zoo." Is making a statement about how she WOULD feel IN THE (hypothetical) EVENT that the condition is fulfilled. 如果去动物园，她会很（高兴/喜欢） So, using "want" is more bluntly stating a fact. Both are used to suggest through implication a course of action to the listener (going to the zoo) but one is equivalent to saying "You should go to the zoo because she wants to!!" while the other is more polite: "If you were to go to the zoo, she would like it" or "You might want to go to the zoo, she would like that." Let's look at another example: A:"Want to come to the party?" B:"I would love to." here, "B" being more flexible and polite by keeping his answer hypothetical. What conditions could he be allowing for by using "would"? "B" is effectively saying: B:"I would really enjoy the party in the event that I am able to go, you permit me to go, and that nothing goes wrong and I actually manage to get there." It's safer to keep your answers hypothetical in the event that something like this happens: A: "About the party, it looks like someone invited too many people..." B: "Oh that's fine, I have plenty of things to do that day anyway." Now let's see what happens if you just use "want": A:"Want to come to the party?" B:"YES." A:"About the party, it looks like someone invited too many people..." B:"OH. I GUESS I CAN'T GO THEN. I'LL JUST FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO DO." A: (This is so awkward, I feel so bad because I know he wanted to go.) When declare to someone that you "WANT" to do something, the other person can't 退步 or have any flexibility, and you are forcing him to deal with the knowledge of what you want to do. By using "would", you are effectively saying "I would if that is possible, but you don't have to." 假如 X, 我会 Y. 但是不一定要 X. 这样留给对方一种“退路”比较礼貌

Yes, those sentences look fine. Here's verb then i-adj: 彼は余りしゃべらなくて、暗い人です。 Verb Noun Noun i-adj na-adj 彼は毎日筋トレをしていて、サッカー部の部長で、イケ面で、優しくて、まるで夢みたい！！ (speaker is presumably a high school girl and thus doesn't use だ at the end.) I'm sure you could think up of examples of every combination that make sense, there's basically no grammatical restriction, but some ordering may sound better or more natural than others. guidetojapanese.org/learn/grammar/compound Here's a page on te-form. Do yourself a huge favor and read the whole guide if you're not using it already. Also, the only dictionary you will ever need: edrdg.org/cgi-bin/wwwjdic/wwwjdic?1C

The second option is correct. You can cut away some of the stuff in the middle and effectively get a sentence like this: "What I cling to here . . . is the fact that artists are frequently . . . and that this might prove to be a useful advantage." I hope this makes it easier to see the connections, since the original passage is fairly long and drawn out. It's just a matter of keeping the clauses organized in your head as you read. See below: What I cling to here ((and it is in part a corrective to or defence of non-residency)) <<<INSERTED COMMENT is the fact that <<<FACT 1 [artists are frequently commissioned to make work for places and cultures to which they do not strictly ‘belong’,] and that <<<FACT 2 [ this might prove to be a useful advantage.] So yes, the author himself is the proponent of both statements or "facts".

"to care" can be used two ways: "to care for someone" can mean "to care about someone" OR "to look after someone" That is, one of the meanings of "to care for" is SYNONYMOUS with "to care about", meaning to be concerned about. To rephrase this, "to care for" means one of the following: [1] to look after [2] to care about Examples: Lovers care deeply for each other (meaning [1]) She cares for 10 toddlers at the daycare center. [2] I don't care how much it costs, I need it. [1] Please take care of this business today. [2] "to matter" is the INVERSE of meaning [2]. Take the third example above: "I don't care how much it costs. I need it." = "I do not care about the cost." SUBJECT= I , OBJECT= the cost the INVERSE uses "to matter": "It doesn't matter how much it costs. I need it." = "The cost does not matter to me." SUBJECT= the cost , OBJECT= me In essence, "to matter" is used to express whether the SUBJECT effects or has anything to do with the OBJECT in any way. "It doesn't matter what she thinks. I'm going either way." "It doesn't matter if it's raining. This thing is waterproof." Most of the time instead of " Y does not matter to X." you will see " Y doesn't matter." That is, the OBJECT (X) is commonly left out and implied as in the above examples. The first "it" in the above examples acts as a substitute for the condition that comes after "that", "if", "what" and so on. This is also called the {SUBJECT}. "{I} don't care that the food fell on the floor, I'm still going to eat it." "{It} doesn't matter {that it fell on the floor}, I'm still going to eat it." "{That the food fell on the floor} does not matter, I'm still going to eat it."

I will write this answer in part responding to Carita's answer. "Fidelity" is in fact used. Its opposite, the word "infidelity" is used almost EXCLUSIVELY to describe marital/sexual infidelity between people in a relationship. So, "fidelity" is often used in reference to human romantic/sexual relationships. The one other case you see it used is as a TECHNICAL term in film/computer graphics to describe "picture fidelity", meaning how "true" a picture or photograph is to the actual real-world object(s) or scene pictured. Any usages of 'fidelity" outside of these two are likely more old-fashioned. Allegiance has to do with alliances. It has more to do with official signed agreements between states and political heads than it does human emotion. It does not necessarily match what you feel in your "heart". You can hold an allegiance reluctantly, or pledge allegiance half-heartedly or while intending to turn your coat later. Loyalty is the purest/most plain form. It is essentially what a dog feels for a good owner or what best friends have for each other.