The status of the family's of mother's of wife's of yours is good

[Anhminh1232002]

Hello everyone,
When I am looking for the the word 'of' in my Longman dictionary, it said that:
When referring to one of several people or things belonging to or connected with someone, or when using 'this' or 'that', use of + mine/yours/his/hers/ours/theirs : a friend of mine (NOT a friend of me) | a relation of ours (NOT a relation of us) |that car of yours (NOT that car of you) .

So Am I correct if I write like this?
The status of the family's of mother's of wife's of yours is good.

In my opinion, family's and mother's and wife's are correspond to 'mine, yours, hers,...'. Because they all are possessive pronouns. That's why I used the possessive case of 'family, mother, wife' in the sentence despite the fact that many people don't use the possessive form of nouns as in:

The status of the family of mother of wife of yours is good.
Thanks.

[Luschen]

This question is very unclear to me. Only use the possessive case if what the subject possesses follows immediately after the subject. {Sorry if that is unclear} Say "my family's status" not "the status of my family's". So say either "my family's status is good" or "the status of my family is good". "Of my" shows possession, so the apostrophe-s is not needed.

[Cerberus™]

No, it should be: "The status of the family of the mother of your wife is good." Or, better: "The status of the family of your wife's mother is good.

The construction "of" + possessive is only used if an adjective ("red"), demonstrative pronoun ("this"), or indefinite article ("a") comes before the thing possessed (like "book" here): it is "some books of mine, that book of mine, a book of mine", but "give me books of mine" is impossible: it becomes "my books".

It is also impossible with "the" before the thing possessed: "the book of mine, the red scarves of John's" are impossible; that is "my book, John's red scarves".

Another condition is that the possessor must be one specific person ("the baker's": I'm referring to a specific baker because I use "the"; "John's": I'm referring to a specific person named John). If it is a specific thing/person, it cannot come between adjective/pronoun/article, so it must come after; it then becomes "of + 's" if it is a single person, but simply "of" if it is not a single person. So it is "a book of mine, a book of John's, a book of the baker's", but "a book of the family, of the library". The reason is that this special construction is only necessary (and only allowed) sometimes because you can't put a possessive in between an adjective/article/pronoun and a thing or person that there is only one of (like "I" or "John"): "a my book" is impossible, so it has to come after: "a book of mine". The reason why we use "of + possessive" with single persons and simply "of" elsewhere is arbitrary: it is just idiom.

If the possessor is not specific (like "a student", "people", "children"), it can come either before or after the thing possessed: "these baker's gloves, these gloves of a baker" (unless restricted for some other reason), though it usually comes before. That also depends on the word. If it comes after, it is always just "of", not "of + 's", because it is not specific.

[Anhminh1232002]

[Beeesneees]

We wouldn't actually say either of those in practice. We'd say one of these:
A family book / A library book / a book belonging to the family / a book belonging to the library / a book from the library.
_________________
Cheers m' dears!

[Anhminh1232002]