Alexander Koryagin:   
      
   AK> I looked in my textbook: there is no Gerund in "the   
   AK> invading of Iraq"   
   AK>   
   AK> 1. Gerund is not used with articles   
   AK>   
   AK> 2. Gerund is used without preposition.   
   AK>   
   AK> 3. Gerund can't be used with adjectives (but we can   
   AK>  easily add an adjective here "the outrageous invading   
   AK>  of Iraq"   
      
   I don't agree with the first two statements.  Here are   
   examples of the gerund from Baskervill and Sewell's "An   
   English Grammar":   
      
     1.  The taking of means not to see another morning had all   
         day absorbed every energy.   
      
     2.  Our culture therefore must not omit the arming of the   
         man.   
      
   They have the definite article and the preposition "of".   
      
   I understand the gerund as the phrase that behaves as a noun   
   and in which a verb governs a noun.  It may or may not have   
   articles, adjectives, or prepositions.  Pay heed, once more,   
   to B&S:   
      
     The participle has been called an adjectival verbal; the   
     gerund may be called a noun verbal.  While the gerund   
     expresses action, it has several attributes of a   
     noun,---it may be governed as a noun; it may be the   
     subject of a verb, or the object of a verb or a   
     preposition; it is often preceded by the definite article;   
     it is frequently modified by a possessive noun or pronoun.   
      
   Of course, if by gerund one understands the verb itself,   
   then the articles, prepositions, and adjectives in the   
   examples above do not belong to but rather interact with the   
   gerunds.   
      
   AK> In short we have here an "ing noun".   
      
   Yes!   
      
   AK> But since we have "invasion", I doubt that using   
   AK> "invading" as a noun is OK.   
      
   Quite OK: "He did not even consider invading Iraq."   
      
   AK> Many verbs don't have ing nouns.  For instance,   
   AK> produce(production, not producing),   
   AK> manufacture(manufacture, not manufacturing) sell(sale,   
   AK> not selling)".   
      
   Another way to look at it is that they are verbs in nouns'   
   disguise.  For example, in "the production of cars" the noun   
   "cars" is governed by the verb "produce".  The preposition   
   "of" denotes not posession but government, cf. "the tail of   
   the cat."  The tail belongs to the cat, but production does   
   not belong to cars.  In what terms do you explain this   
   distinction if you don't accept mine?   
      
   ---   
    * Origin: *** nntp://fidonews.mine.nu *** Finland *** (2:221/6.0)