When studying the grammar of a language, one task is to identify different word forms (morphology) and word classes (lexical categories, parts of speech). So, then, does English have a gerund (verbal form)? Many would probably answer this question in the affirmative, but I say "no, it doesn't". What is a gerund? Well, it's a verbal form in Latin (and it does occur in other languages) that is one way to noun a verb (mark verbal nominalization). In Latin grammar, there are actually two different grammatical forms with slightly different names: the gerund and the gerundive. The former is a verbal noun and the latter a verbal adjective. Latin also has a present participle, which is a different kind of verbal adjective. Let's take a look at the forms:

Verb: amo, amare, amavi, amatus 'to love'.

Present participle: amans 'loving' as in a loving parent.

Gerund: amandi 'of loving' (with loving as a noun); the gerund does not occur in the nominative in Latin grammar, so the genitive form is cited.

Gerundive: amandus 'loving' (as an adjective).

Now for English.

Verb: love.

Present participle: loving (adjective).

Gerund: loving (noun).

I would analyze English grammar as having an -ing form, and describe how adjectives can be nominalized by zero morphology (aka nouning the verb or using an adjective as a noun). It doesn't really help much to posit a different verb form (the gerund), which is identical in its morphology to another form (the present participle). To be truthful, the roman grammarians were guilty of this multiplying of terminology, because the difference between the gerund and the gerundive in Latin is not one of outward marking, but of the changing of word classes.

As I understand less than half of it, I'd like to ask some questions.

*Present participle: amans 'loving' as in a loving parent.

Gerund: amandi 'of loving' (with loving as a noun); the gerund does not occur in the nominative in Latin grammar, so the genitive form is cited.

*Gerundive: amandus 'loving' (as an adjective).

1.Present participle: amans 'loving' as in loving parent and Gerundive: amandus 'loving' (as an adjective): What's the difference as you say they are both adjectives.

English, Gerund: loving (noun).

2.Do you mean: the loving, the talking, the writing, the fighting
and so on?

1.Present participle: amans 'loving' as in loving parent and Gerundive: amandus 'loving' (as an adjective): What's the difference as you say they are both adjectives.

Ah, yes, I knew I'd forget something. It's complicated, but the whole story is here. The gerundive tends to be used instead of the present participle when the verbal noun takes an object: e.g., consilium urbem capiendi 'a design of taking the city'. It also used with the meaning of something that is supposed to happen. As with Cato's famous catch phrase in the Roman Senate: Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse (literally, "I also think that Carthage is (something) that ought to be destroyed") "I also think that Carthage must be destroyed."".

English, Gerund: loving (noun).

2.Do you mean: the loving, the talking, the writing, the fighting
and so on?

Yes, like Reading is good, Eating is necessary, etc. There is very little difference semantically between the gerund and the infinitive in English. To read is good, To breath is necessary.

Aha, regardless of the whole story, which would take me a year to get through I understand the difference now. Also the nouned verb is clear.

We do have the same two, I think : gerund and infinitive, but the infinitive is always placed at the tail of a sentence.
Het is goed om te eten.

Gerund at the head of a sentence.
Eten is goed

complicated matter

And furthermore I am of the opinion that Carthage should be destroyed.

No, that's not really how it went. It went: "And yet I am of the opinion that Carthage must be destroyed." That's how it went when for the so maniest time, as students, after long discussions we had once more not solved the problems of the world. One or the other would always say that.

Except that when it's a gerund it's not a verb anymore. It's a noun.

Except that when it's a gerund it's not a verb anymore. It's a noun.

I meant differentiating the gerund from the present participle. In English they are identical, and since there's already a more general rule that says nouns can be "derived" from adjectives by zero morphology, I, personally, see no reason to multiple forms. We just call it a gerund because that's the term used in Latin grammar.

So it's a gerund if you call it a gerund but it isn't if you don't? How many legs does a horse have if you call the tail a leg?

And, does the gerund -ing ending have the same origin as the present progressive -ing ending?

And, does the gerund -ing ending have the same origin as the present progressive -ing ending?

Maybe, maybe not. In Old English, the present participle and the so-called gerund were both formed by adding -Vnde to the verb. In the late Old English period, these started changing to -ing. There was an ending -ung, -ing, that formed verbal nouns, cf. Gyrstandæg ic wæs on huntunge ("heri fui in venatione" / "yesterday, I was a-hunting"). Because there might have been two different forms in Old english is no excuse for there to be two different (but identical) forms in Present-Day English. This is like saying that English inflects for case, but that the nominative, dative, and accusative cases have the same forms. (It seems related to the etymological fallacy.)

But hey, if you want both a gerund and a present participle in English, more power to you. Why not let's have a supine, too? In fact, there might be more of an argument for the supine: cf. the infinitive in English, e.g., love, with the supine to love.

Arnold Zwicky on when parts-of-speech-hood (link).

I just found this to me very instructive site for English grammar, LinK
but when I read in this article that a def./ undef. article is no longer a def./ undef.article it seems like a waste of time to do some catching up.

I found this might help. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/index2.htm

English is my language and I must admit I still get confused.
In this case however, it is not just the word ending but how it is used with modifiers and punctuation that makes the difference between the gerund and the participle

Thank you, I added it to favs. I never knew there is so much of the stuff. I followed the thread because my grandson last autumn started highschool with a.o. English and Latin and likes to share all the new things. I have no Latin and noticed how much I forgot about English grammar. I rather like to really understand what he talks about.

It's not a noun, though. It has some properties of a verb (it can have a subject and object), and it has some properties of a noun (it can function as a subject or object).

For instance
I enjoy eating cakes.

eating has an object, cakes, and nouns don't have objects, verbs do. Also, if eating was a noun here, then I should be able to replace it with another noun. But I can't.

*I enjoy consumption cakes.

But eating cakes is the object of the verb enjoy and verbs don't take verbs as their object.

No, they take clauses, and eating functions as a verb in the clause eating cakes.

they take clauses, and eating functions as a verb in the clause eating cakes.

I agree with goofy. It may simply be a matter of terminology. Parts-of-speech-hood (aka syntactic categories) has always have always been a messy thing, but Greek and Roman grammarians did recognize participles as a distinct category from nouns and verbs. Like verbs they could have subjects or objects and like nouns they had number, gender, and case. In the '40s Zelig Harris, Chomsky's advisor, tried to get away from using terms like noun and verb altogether, and wanted to use more abstract classes like A, B, or Q. Most linguists these days follow, as does goofy here, a slot-replacement kind of approach to parts of speech. For example, what kind of syntactic slot does eating fill? It can be used as a noun:

1. Eating pleases me.
2. I like eating.

But it also sometimes fills the slot that looks more like a verb phrase:

3. Eating cakes pleases me.
4. I like eating cakes.

Somehow the nounness of eating is not quite the same as the nounness of meal.

5. Meals please me.
3. *Meals cakes please me.