Alexander Koryagin to Ardith Hinton:   
      
   AH>> If you can use "the" &/or any other type of adjective   
   AH>> to modify a word it's a noun... regardless of its   
   AH>> origin.   
      
   AK> We cannot say that a gerund is a form of a noun.   
   AK> Otherwise we would study it when we study nouns.   
      
   Wherefore the sharp dichotomy, when even conventional   
   grammar acknowledges intermediate, or compound, parts of   
   speech, somewhat similarly to the wave-particle dualism in   
   quantum mechanics.  The gerund *is" like the noun in that it   
   can be a subject or an object in a sentence.  Goold Brown,   
   for example, thus defines the participle:   
      
     A Participle is a word derived from a verb, participating   
     the properties of a verb, and of an adjective or a noun;   
     and is generally formed by adding 'ing', 'd', or 'ed', to   
     the verb: thus, from the verb 'rule', are formed three   
     participles, two simple and one compound; as, 1. 'ruling',   
     2. 'ruled', 3. 'having ruled'.   
      
   And the gerund he considers as a special case of the   
   participle:   
      
     Participles in ing often become nouns.  When preceded by   
     an article, an adjective or a noun or pronoun of the   
     possessive case, they are construed as nouns; and, if   
     wholly such, have neither adverbs nor active regimen: as,   
     "He laugheth at the shaking of a spear."--Job, xli, 29.   
     [...]   
     A participle immediately preceded by a preposition, is not   
     converted into a noun, but remains a participle, and   
     therefore retains its adverb, and also its government of   
     the objective case; as, "I thank you for helping him so   
     seasonably." Participles in this construction correspond   
     with the Latin gerund, and are sometimes called   
     gerundives.   
      
   ---   
    * Origin: *** nntp://fidonews.mine.nu *** Finland *** (2:221/6.0)