camouflage of

0A, without question.02br
02br
00A house of cards, etc., camouflage made from technique, just like the house is made of cards.0-

0 If we, for example, convert the verb 'destroy' in 'destroy X' into the noun 'destruction', it will be '(the) destruction of X'. Then, if you were supposed to convert the verb 'camouflage' in 'camouflage X', how would you convert it? 0-

0Leave it alone. It's already a noun. "The insect's ingenious camouflage did not save it from falling prey to the snake." (not used here to show the result of the verb's action)02br
02br
00I've also heard the present participle used as a noun. "The camouflaging of the fort is not very effective."0-

0 01blockquote

01cite10Taka12cite10default interpretation of 'a camouflage of technique'?12blockquote

10 Personally, I don't think I have a default interpretation. It seems ambiguous. 02br
01i00camouflage of02i00 can be followed either by the material or colors used to create the effect of camoufl

0 In "the camouflaging of the fort...", 'camouflage' is a 01b00gerund02b00.02br
00Present participles don't have nominal force in English, but adjectival and sometimes adverbial force.02br
00Miriam0-

0I agree with CJ. Told you already this is bad writing. 0-

0 01blockquote

01cite10CalifJim12cite11blockquote

11cite20Taka22cite20default interpretation of 'a camouflage of technique'?22blockquote

20 Personally, I don't think I have a default interpretation.  It seems ambiguous. 12br
12br
11i10camouflage of12i10 c

0Doesn't anyone enjoy the irony of such bad writing being used to describe the faults of bad writing?0-

1blockquote

01cite10miriam12cite10 'camouflage' is a 11b10gerund12b10. 12blockquote

12br
00My dictionaries list "camouflage" as a noun and as a verb.0-