Monocomplementive, tran-sit I vc The railings

§ 3. The gerund is the non-finite form of the verb which, like the infinitive, combines the properties of the verb with those of the noun. Similar to the infinitive, the gerund serves as the verbal name of a process, but its substantive quality is more strongly pronounced than that of the infinitive. Name­ly, as different from the infinitive, and similar to the noun, the gerund can be modified by a noun in the possessive case or its pronominal equivalents (expressing the subject of the verbal process), and it can be used with prepositions.
Since the gerund, like the infinitive, is an abstract name of the process denoted by the verbal lexeme, a question might arise, why the infinitive, and not the gerund is taken as the head-form of the verbal lexeme as a whole, its accepted re­presentative in the lexicon.
As a matter of fact, the gerund cannot perform the func­tion of the paradigmatic verbal head-form for a number of reasons. In the first place, it is more detached from the finite verb than the infinitive semantically, tending to be a far more substantival unit categorially. Then, as different from the infinitive, it does not join in the conjugation of the finite verb. Unlike the infinitive, it is a suffixal form, which
108
makes it less generalized than the infinitive in terms of the formal properties of the verbal lexeme (although it is more abstract in the purely semantic sense). Finally, it is less definite than the infinitive from the lexico-grammatical point of view, being subject to easy neutralizations in its opposi­tion with the verbal noun in -ing, as well as with the present participle. Hence, the gerund is no rival of the infinitive in the paradigmatic head-form function.
The general combinability of the gerund, like that of the infinitive, is dual, sharing some features with the verb, and some features with the noun. The verb-type combinability of the gerund is displayed in its combining, first, with nouns expressing the object of the action; second, with modifying adverbs; third, with certain semi-functional predicator verbs, but other than modal. Of the noun-type is the combinability of the gerund, first, with finite notional verbs as the object of the action; second, with finite notional verbs as the pre­positional adjunct of various functions; third, with finite notional verbs as the subject of the action; fourth, with nouns as the prepositional adjunct of various functions.
The gerund, in the corresponding positional patterns, performs the functions of all the types of notional sentence-parts, i.e. the subject, the object, the predicative, the attri­bute, the adverbial modifier. Cf.:
Repeating your accusations over and over again doesn't make them more convincing. (Gerund subject position) No wonder he delayed breaking the news to Uncle Jim. (Gerund direct object position) She could not give her mind to pressing wild flowers in Pauline's botany book. (Gerund addressee object position) Joe felt annoyed at being shied by his room­mates. (Gerund prepositional object position) You know what luck is? Luck is believing you're lucky. (Gerund pred­icative position) Fancy the pleasant prospect of listening to all the gossip they've in store for you! (Gerund attributive position) He could not push against the furniture without bringing the whole lot down. (Gerund adverbial of manner position)
One of the specific gerund patterns is its combination with the noun in the possessive case or its possessive pronom­inal equivalent expressing the subject of the action. This gerundial construction is used in cases when the subject of the gerundial process differs from the subject of the governing
109

sentence-situation, i.e. when the gerundial sentence-part has its own, separate subject. E.g.:
PowelVs being rude like that was disgusting. How can she know about the Mortons' being connected with this unac­countable affair? Will he ever excuse our having interfered?
The possessive with the gerund displays one of the dis­tinctive categorial properties of the gerund as such, estab­lishing it in the English lexemic system as the form of the verb with nounal characteristics. As a matter of fact, from the point of view of the inner semantic relations, this com­bination is of a verbal type, while from the point of view of the formal categorial features, this combination is of a nounal type. It can be clearly demonstrated by the appropriate trans­formations, i.e. verb-related and noun-related re-construc­tions. Cf.: I can't stand his criticizing artistic works that are beyond his competence. (T-verbal -»He is criticizing artistic works. T-nounal—* His criticism of artistic works.)
Besides combining with the possessive noun-subject, the verbal ing-iorm can also combine with the noun-subject in the common case or its objective pronominal equivalent. E.g.: I read in yesterday's paper about the hostages having been released.
This gerundial use as presenting very peculiar features of categorial mediality will be discussed after the treatment of the participle.
The formal sign of the gerund is wholly homonymous with that of the present participle: it is the suffix -ing added to its grammatically (categorially) leading element.
Like the infinitive, the gerund is a categorially change­able (variable, demutative) form; it distinguishes the two grammatical categories, sharing them with the finite verb and the present participle, namely, the aspective category of retrospective coordination (perfect in opposition), and the category of voice (passive in opposition). Consequently, the categorial paradigm of the gerund of the objective verb in­cludes four forms: the simple active, the perfect active; the simple passive, the perfect passive. E.g.: taking — having taken — being taken — having been taken.
The gerundial paradigm of the non-objective verb, cor­respondingly, includes two forms. E.g.: going — having gone.
The perfect forms of the gerund are used, as a rule, only in semantically strong positions, laying special emphasis on the meaningful categorial content of the form.