Mfcttrf

To what extent can someone interpret transitive verb” and it’s “object, and what is it possible to use to make sure it has no mistake either in grammar or meaning?

For instance, look at this sentence

• My friend is trying to illustrate in sequence all scenes of the movie.

I usually would write the sentence above in the following form:

• My friend is trying to illustrate all scenes of the movie in sequence.

I know that an object typically follows a transitive verb with no interruption.

My question is what are the rules to follow when we want to interpret the combination of a transitive verb with an object?

It's not about rules, but more about style and readability. One problem with inserting adverbs between the verb and the object is that it may not be clear what they modify. One silly example of this:

Adam: He rode quickly his horse into town.

Byron: You mean he rode into town quickly?

Adam: No, "Quickly" is the name of his horse.

In your example, there is no chance "in sequence" modifies "all scenes", so it doesn't much matter if you put it in the middle or at the end of the sentence. If you are concerned about readability, add commas

My friend is trying to illustrate**, in sequence,** all the scenes of the movie.

Note: It's even possible to add it at the start of the sentence; however because we don't know what it modifies, it add some measure of "emphasis" and/or "dramatic tension".

In sequence, my friend is trying to illustrate all the scenes of the movie.

This may be appropriate if you want to contrast this method with illustrating some other way (non-sequentially?) or if you want to draw special notice to the fact that the illustrations are sequential. This is probably not something you want to do in your example, but it might work in a different context:

One by one, the chess prodigy soundly defeated all the masters who came to challenge him.

The rule is that that you can interpose adverbs, indirect objects, and prepositional phrases between a verb and its direct object. Anyone who tells you there must be no interruption is simply citing a false rule.

What is true is that an interruption by a long, complex prepositional phrase may interfere with comprehension. That is a question of style rather than strict grammar.

With reference to your specific example, I would put "in sequence" at the end of the sentence unless I wanted to emphasize that the illustrations were in sequence. Alterations of word order are a common way to indicate emphasis.

A native speaker would likely pause briefly between "illustrate" and "in sequence," and that pause would indicate a more complex word order than usual. In writing, I personally would mimic that pause by placing commas before and after "in sequence."

Cambridge Dictionary says We don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object, citing as an example

She plays the piano really well

Not: She plays really well the piano.

But so far as I can see, in OP's example, in sequence is an adverbial element modifying the verb illustrate in exactly the same way really well adverbially modifies plays in the Cambridge example.

It's irrelevant that the specific verb in OP's example is an infinitive form governed by is trying, because it's also "okay" to say He is illustrating in sequence all scenes of the movie.

Note that I put okay in "scare quotes" above. Some people might not like it at all, and some might think it's just slightly "off". But I really can't imagine anyone complaining about a teacher saying to a pupil...

I've circled in red all the words you misspelled in your homework

I think what this nets down to is we usually avoid putting an adverbial element between verb and object. But not always - particularly if the object is a longer text string than the adverbial element (in which case we might want to get the adverb in early, so the reader doesn't have to remember too far back to identify the relevant verb being modified).