Hi, Anton Shepelev!   
   I read your message from 29.01.2017 14:17   
      
      
   Let's read a BASKERVILL& SEWELL's textbook; in what way the gerund differs   
   from the the verbal noun. IMHO there is something strange in the text,   
   especially in the examples.   
      
   -----Beginning of the citation-----   
   273.   
   ....   
      
   It differs from the verbal noun in having the property of governing a   
   noun (which the verbal noun has not) and of expressing action (the   
   verbal noun merely names an action, Sec. II).   
      
   The following are examples of the uses of the gerund:--   
      
   (1) _Subject_: "The _taking_ of means not to see another morning had   
   all day absorbed every energy;" "Certainly _dueling_ is bad, and has   
   been put down."   
      
   (2) _Object_: (_a_) "Our culture therefore must not omit the _arming_   
   of the man." (_b_) "Nobody cares for _planting_ the poor fungus;"   
   ----- The end of the citation -----   
      
   Attention, they say -- the Gerund differs from the verbal noun in having the   
   property of governing a noun (which the verbal noun has not).   
      
   IMHO it means that the Gerund governs the next noun directly without a   
   preposition. And I wonder that above mentioned examples offer us something   
   opposite:   
      
   The _taking_ of means.   
      
   "Taking" doesn't govern "means" directly.   
      
    AK>> But since we have "invasion", I doubt that using "invading" as a   
    AK>> noun is OK.   
      
    AS> Quite OK: "He did not even consider invading Iraq."   
      
   Yes, "invading" here is a gerund, and it governs "Iraq" directly, without a   
   preposition.   
      
      
    AK>> Many verbs don't have ing nouns. For instance, produce(production,   
    AK>> not producing), manufacture(manufacture, not manufacturing)   
    AK>> sell(sale, not selling)".   
      
    AS> Another way to look at it is that they are verbs in nouns'   
    AS> disguise. For example, in "the production of cars" the noun "cars"   
    AS> is governed by the verb "produce". The preposition "of" denotes not   
    AS> posession but government, cf. "the tail of the cat." The tail   
    AS> belongs to the cat, but production does not belong to cars. In what   
    AS> terms do you explain this distinction if you don't accept mine?   
      
   As I understand it, a gerund (as a form of a verb) must take the same direct   
   object as a pure verb. Examples:   
      
   They loaded the ship.  (a pure verb)   
   They started loading the ship. ( a gerund)   
      
   I read English books  (a pure verb)   
   I like reading English books (not "I like reading of English books" -- the   
   gerund is detected!)   
      
   PS:   
   possession   
   PPS:   
   "The _taking_ of means not to see another morning had all day absorbed every   
   energy."  - can you retell it in other words? Maybe we have here a kind of bad   
   scanning?   
   Look also the earlier version of the textbook:   
   https://goo.gl/YPmBr1   
      
   Bye, Anton!   
   Alexander Koryagin   
   ENGLISH_TUTOR 2017   
      
   --- Paul's Win98SE VirtualBox   
    * Origin: Quinn's Post - Maryborough, Queensland, OZ (3:640/384)