nornen:Kiel esperantigi anglajn ing-formojn?
...

Precize.

nornen:
Ĉi tie, “walking”, “singing” and “having come” ne estas gerundoj, sed participoj. Nur “paying” estas eble gerundo. Retejo pri Gramatiko, kiu ne konas la malsamecon inter participoj kaj gerundoj, kaj kiu donas ekzemple “having came” anstataux “having come”, eble ne estas fidinda.

Jes, I would disregard the whole site.

What Nornen says about English and its development, sounds very plausible at least to my layman's ears. While being originally a Germanic language, English has been bombarded by Romance languages, especially by French, during the centuries, so that it now days it is a mess, eh... mixes things somewhat. You might be interested in Anglish, the true Germanic variant of English.

Metsis:

MiMalamasLaAnglan:

sergejm:Manĝi homojn estas malĝustE.
Then the subject is a verb, the predicative is an adverb.

Or, to be more gerund-like, one could say "Manĝado de homoj estas malĝusta".

Or to avoid the polysemic de one can say Manĝado homojn estas malĝusta, even if that may feel strange to some. Anyway there is no restriction in E-o for having a verb as a subject of a sentence, so manĝi homojn estas malĝuste is perhaps the simplest one.

I agree that Manĝi homojn estas malĝusta would be the most natural way to say this.

Can you please explain how to use the accusative in phrases like your example of Manĝado homojn estas malĝusta?

Metsis:

nornen:Kiel esperantigi anglajn ing-formojn?
...

Precize.

nornen:
Ĉi tie, “walking”, “singing” and “having come” ne estas gerundoj, sed participoj. Nur “paying” estas eble gerundo. Retejo pri Gramatiko, kiu ne konas la malsamecon inter participoj kaj gerundoj, kaj kiu donas ekzemple “having came” anstataux “having come”, eble ne estas fidinda.

Jes, I would disregard the whole site.

What Nornen says about English and its development, sounds very plausible at least to my layman's ears. While being originally a Germanic language, English has been bombarded by Romance languages, especially by French, during the centuries, so that it now days it is a mess, eh... mixes things somewhat. You might be interested in Anglish, the true Germanic variant of English.

What would the opposite of Anglish be like (an English-based Romance language)?

MiMalamasLaAnglan:What would the opposite of Anglish be like (an English-based Romance language)?

That would be modern English... to a certain degree.

Modern English surely is not a Romance language, but the result of centuries of linguistic contact between a Germanic substrate (Aenglisc) and Romance superstrates (Latin, Francish, French). The effect is so huge (throwing away 80% of the original lexicon, reworking wide parts of the grammar, etc) that one might even argue that modern English could be considered a creole.

MiMalamasLaAnglan:Can you please explain how to use the accusative in phrases like your example of Manĝado homojn estas malĝusta?

It boils down to, that de is polysemic, has multiple meanings, of which two are, that it can denote both subject and object. PMEG has examples:

• La kanto de la birdoj estas agrabla : The singing of birds is nice.
  Here de denotes the subject.
  
• Vortoj kunmetitaj estas kreataj per simpla kunligado de vortoj : Compound words are created simply by putting words together.
  Here de denotes the object.

While in most cases it is obvious, which de denotes, there are cases, where both readings are possible:

• Oni ankoraŭ ne solvis la murdon de Olof Palme.
  Did Palme murder someone or was Palme murdered?
  
• Hodiaŭ posttagmeze okazos akcepto de la urbestro.
  Will the mayor accept someone or something or will the mayor be accepted?

There are a couple of ways to solve this ambiguity.

One can mark the subject by fare de:

• Hodiaŭ posttagmeze okazos akcepto fare de la urbestro

One can mark the object either by the general object marker, i.e. accusative, or by a preposition:

• Manĝado homojn estas malĝuste.
  Z himself sometimes used this construction of -ado + accusative, which requires that the root of the -ado word (here manĝ/) has verbial character. You can check this character in a dictionary: is the first explanation given for a verb? Compare this to the gerund in English: Eating people is wrong. Despite being a noun both the gerund and the -ado word retain something of their verbial origin by being capable of having an direct object: people resp. homojn.
  
• Mi demandas vin → Mi havas demandon al vi.
  Here a direct object of a verb has been replaced with a noun with an indirect object indicated by a preposition.

The former way of -ado + accusative (manĝado homojn) has fallen out of favour (serĉo celita) and contemporary usage is either infinite + accusative (manĝi homojn) or noun + preposition (manĝado de homoj). My guess is, that the -ado way is somewhat strange to speakers of languages of the West-European branch of the Indoeuropean languages. Furthermore as has been stated earlier, since a verb can directly be a subject (manĝi... estas...) in E-o (no need to gerundify it), this, the simplest way, has replaced any clumsier way.

nornen:

MiMalamasLaAnglan:What would the opposite of Anglish be like (an English-based Romance language)?

That would be modern English... to a certain degree.

Modern English surely is not a Romance language, but the result of centuries of linguistic contact between a Germanic substrate (Aenglisc) and Romance superstrates (Latin, Francish, French). The effect is so huge (throwing away 80% of the original lexicon, reworking wide parts of the grammar, etc) that one might even argue that modern English could be considered a creole.

I meant if English actually had Romance grammar, maybe like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brithenig, but more English than Celtic.