It depends on what happened. If the woodchuck was cut in half by the dome falling on it, then you would say: - A woodchuck was cut in half by the falling Dome or - A woodchuck was cut in half when the dome fell on it. I prefer the second sentence (if it's correct in your context). If the dome had already fallen, and then cut the thing in half, then I would say your sentence is correct.

Where is this from, can we see the original source?

Looking at the whole paragraph on the link you posted (complicated stuff!), I think you're right, but you need to change one more thing: Although the total net anthropogenic would barely change in the meantime, until we REACH a point at which we could no longer reduce any more aerosols, the energy imbalance of the earth WILL not worsen. The second two phrases are linked together and form a future time clause. So one of the clauses needs to have 'will' in it and the other a time clause word (in this case "until"). If I am reading this correctly that is. Hope it helps!

Using what you have given already, I would phrase it as: Although Korea is not (seen as/regarded as/-----) a really dangerous country to live in, most parents always worry that their (child/children) could (end up/find themselves) in a dangerous situation. Pick one of the phrases from the brackets and delete whichever phrases from the brackets you don't like. "-----" is a blank space, you could leave nothing in the gap and the sentence would make sense. I might also remove the word 'really' but that's up to you. Hope that helps :)

I think you need both - the banker's wife's blues. Because the first possessive is still valid/true when you apply the other one. It looks funny in writing but that's what I think is correct. If it were a two-word noun, without a possessive to begin with, you would only add it to the second word. I'm trying really hard to think of an example, so I'm going to use what's in front of me!: My JBL speaker's sound is quite good. JBL speaker has no possessive by itself, so you only apply it to the second word when adding the possessive

This are very complicated structures, so I'm not to sure, but I don't think either of them are relative clauses. They are related to previously mentioned things in the paragraphs, but they are stand alone and they don't have a relative pronoun connecting them (who, whom, which, whoever, whomever, whichever, or that). "... something about migrations of people who lived long ago" 'who lived long ago' is an example of a (defining) relative clause, but I don't think the phrases you pulled out are.

Do you have more of the text, because it's quite hard to figure out what it means in this context? I think it is trying to be descriptive, maybe saying there are big, maybe pointy rocks which looked like they were aimed at the ceiling or going up the sides. But it's hard to say, that's my guess. There is a whole other meaning of some of those words in slang however, so I have to ask, is the text about describing a cave or about drug use? (See, very different meanings!)

This is a super old-fashioned term (no one uses this!). Think of the days when a woman's father would need to be asked permission by a gentleman to court his daughter (a gentleman in a top hat I may add), to go to the pictures and stroll down the promenade (if that's how you spell it). It means 'dating' essentially, in quite old fashioned terms, but this whole area is very grey. I would say "dating someone" is official (like a couple), "seeing someone" is unofficial (but still going on dates, meeting up, hanging out, whatever you'd like to call it), and some would say it is casual. Courting was from a time when people typically didn't have casual relationships without the goal of marriage, kids, etc. so I would say closer to dating. It's dating with the view of a marriage partner, but it's out of common use. But, I am in my mid-twenties so what do I know... I would happily be corrected ;)