Cytat: KwasnyKefir
Dziękuje wszystkim za odpowiedzi.
Janski, dziękuje za Twoją odpowiedź...
You could ask someone for translation of what I wrote earlier and what follows.
It's not an issue of stress, and it is not a matter of what is or isn't important at a given moment.
The choice seems to reflect the epistemic status of the denotatum. The of-phrase modification introduces a relationship as new. The genitive in "'s" relies on a presumably already known relation and is preferred whenever a more costly of-phrase would be functionally redundant and wordy.
Jacques-Louis David created a magnificent painting depicting the scene of suicide by Socrates.
It is appropriately titled "The Death of Socrates," and not "Socrates' Death."
https://artclasscurator.com/death-of-socrates-painting-meaning-video-transcript/
"Socrates' Death," as an alternative title, would be hopeless.
However, in a paper about Socrates, I could write something like "After Socrates' death, his disciples remained in mourning for years."
Here, the denotatum—A, B, and the dynamic relation between A and B—is presupposed as established earlier and there is no need for its reintroduction.
To tease out this difference, one could be tempted to look for a hint in the grammatical realm of strong and weak definiteness: anaphoric definiteness is strong, and so is the definiteness determined by 's genitives. The of-phrased "the A of B's" are definite but weak; they gladly introduce novelties and not yet established relations.
The relation between Socrates (my colleague next door) and his desk is readily presupposed as well-established to the hearer when I say "I left the paperwork on Socrates' desk."
"I left the paperwork on the desk of Socrates" would be unacceptable.