1. Grandparents care their grandchildren.

2. Care of grandchildren of grandparents.

Q1) I changed #1 into a noun phrase. I don't know if I changed it correctly. Did I change it correctly?

Oftentimes, I get confused the use of of. Could you possibly explain the use of of related to #2?

Q2) Whether or not #2 is correct, can you give me another version of #1(a noun phrase)?
I don't know what you intend with either sentence, sorry. I can tell you that they are inscrutable. Perhaps you mean these:

1. Grandparents take care of their grandchildren.

2. Grandchildren are cared for by their grandparents.

Or perhaps you mean these:

1. Grandchildren take care of their grandparents.

2. Grandparents are taken care of by their grandchildren.

I don't understand your questions, either.
Ah.. I made readers confused... sorry.

1. Grandparents care their grandchildren.

2. Care of grandchildren of grandparents.

#1 is a complete sentence. #2 is not a sentence but a phrase.

What I intend through #2 is if it is derived from the sentence #1. You showed in your four examples. But what I want to know is not a change from a sentence to a sentence but a sentence(#1) to a phrase.

So my question is if #2 is correctly changed to #1 which is a phrase(not a sentence).

This is done because I often get confused with the usage of of.

Thank you.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Neither your #1 nor your #2 are acceptable, as I have already made clear in my previous post.
Ah.. my original example sentences do not make sense. I see.

1. Grandparents take care of their grandchildren.

Then, can I say 'taking care of grandchildren of grandparents' which is intended to have the same meaning from #1?

If it is not correct, I shouldn't apply my knowledge about of like that.
moon72961. Grandparents take care of their grandchildren.
Then, can I say 'taking care of grandchildren of grandparents' which is intended to have the same meaning from #1?
If it is not correct, I shouldn't apply my knowledge about of like that.
Ah. No, sorry. I can make no sense out of your use of the 2nd 'of' in #2. What kind of transformation do you want to make from #1 to #2?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Do you mean something like one of these examples?

1. Grandparents sometimes take care of their grandchildren.

2. Grandparents taking care of grandchildren is more common in some countries than in others. (This is talking about the general phenomenon of grandparents taking care of their grandchildren.)

3. Grandparents' taking care of their grandchildren is good for all concerned. (This refers to "taking care of grandchildren" as a habit of the grandparents.)

4. Caretaking of grandchildren by grandparents has many advantages.(somewhat awkward)

5. Being taken care of by grandparents has many advantages for children.

(I'm guessing that second "of" in the original example should be "by".)
Wow... yeah..

I meant to make a transformation from #1 to #2 like below.

- Grandparents taking care of grandchildren

- Grandparents' taking care of grandchildren

- Caretaking of grandchildren by grandparents

I wondered if I can make a transformation using of just like #1,2 and 3.

Then my example transformation(Taking care of grandchildren of grandparents) does not make sence even in itself? (It's a badly constructed phrase?

My confusion is just like this..

Since I have limitted knowledge about the usage of of, I often make phrases like this:

- He is a brother of Mike's sister. (= He is Mike's sister's brother.)

- That is an eraser of him. (= That is his eraser.)

So, I thought 'taking care of grandchildren of grandparents' can be the same as 'Grandparents take care of their grandchildren'. (because I thought 'grandchildren of grandparents' is the same as taking care of grandparents' grandchldren.)

Now my post makes sense?
I think it would also have been easier if we started with these:

1. Parents take care of their children. = All parents do so.

- Parents taking care of children = a subgroup of all parents ('parents taking care of children' and 'parents not taking car of children'). 'Parents' is the subject (e.g. Parents taking care of children must be very tired.)

- Parents' taking care of children = 'Taking care of children' is the subject (e.g. Parents' taking care of children can be a very difficult task.)

- (X) Caretaking of children by parents. -- 'Caretake' has a different, more common meaning: to take care of a facility temporarily.

Then my example transformation (Taking care of grandchildren of grandparents) does not make sence even in itself?-- No. (It's a badly constructed phrase?-- Yes.

- He is a brother of Mike's sister. (= He is Mike's sister's brother.)-- OK

- That is an eraser of him. (= That is his eraser.)-- No good. 'That is an eraser of his.'

So, I thought 'taking care of grandchildren of grandparents' can be the same as 'Grandparents take care of their grandchildren'. (because I thought 'grandchildren of grandparents' is the same as taking care of grandparents' grandchldren.) ...Well, now that I see (I tbink) what you are up to, I can figure out how to interpret it, but it is certainly confusing. Taking care of parents' children = Taking care of the children of parents. Is that what you mean? 'Parents' children' is itself redundant, since what else do children have? That is part of the confusion. Also, 'the' is critical to clarify what is going on here: 'the grandchildren of grandparents'. The redundancy remains. This is a classic example of how an odd semantic choice can dumbfound any kind of grammatical analysis.

Now my post makes sense?-- Yes.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.