Translation:After the dog sees the cat it barks.
Biblican Hebrew has אחר (famously https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94:%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%9B%D7%91_%D7%90), but modern Hebrew doesn't, except in a few set phrases.
Bg8aa, this question is the same as What is the difference between אקראי and אקרא and that question was already answered by Yarden above.
If you’re asking why there is a ש after אקראי, the Hebrew sentence follows the pattern of “After that (the fact that) the dog sees the cat...”
The disagreement is why didn't duo accept "he" for dog, as in he barks, and only accepted "it."
If you are referring to the sentence, the dog sees a cat and then he/it (the dog) barks.
In English, some people use "he" or "she" for pets, others use "it". Some people will only use "it" if it is a pet (cat, dog, etc.) that they don't know if it is a boy or a girl (like fish or snakes, or if it's not their pet...they are more likely to be called "it") Either is ok.
For the last word, נובח, after repeated listenings, I hear a very soft ḥet: "noveah." Muraoka (Modern Hebrew for Biblical Scholars, xix) writes: "There are two main modes of pronunciation currently practised in Israel, known as General Israeli and Oriental Israeli respectively. The hallmark of the latter is the Arabicized ח /ḥ/ and ע /ˁ/, whereas in the former both are unknown, the first being replaced by /ḫ/ (i.e. כ without dagesh lene) and the second by /ˀ/ (Alef)." I was therefore expecting something along the lines of noveak (ֶGeneral Israeli), but not noveah. It's interesting that a Sephardic pronunciation (Oriental Israeli) of נובח would seem to resemble more closely what I would expect of the ḥet as people today are typically taught to pronounce it when learning biblical (classical) Hebrew. However, there is evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls that alef, ˁayin, ḥet, and he were not pronounced in the late second Temple period. For instance, heh and ḥet interchange in Mur 44-45. See Michael Wise, Language and Literacy in Roman Judaea: A Study of the Bar Kokhba Documents (Yale, 2015) 260-63, relying on the seminal 1996 study of Joseph Naveh "On Formal and Informal Spelling of Unpronounced Gutterals" in Scripta Classical Israelica, 263-67.
Well, yes Rudolf Meyer too in his Hebräische Grammatik argues that Hebrew lost its laryngals ("Laryngalschwund"), but the masorets restituted them artifically ("Larygalrestitution"). He writes (p. 93) "The laryngeals have been preserved by and large until the time of the Septuagint. Later, they largely lose their consonant value. Apparently inspired by a linguistic ideal after the manner of the Qur'an pronunciation they were restituted. The חֲטָף sounds and the patach furtivum stem from this endeavor, but also the jumble of compensatory lenghtening and virtual duplication" (roughly translated). Concerning this sentence I simply suppose the audio was clipped at the end and נוֹבֵחַ had here originally the usual pronunciation as [x] or /ḫ/, in the way it is pronounced at Forvo.
Agree with Ingeborg, and to give more details: let's chnage the verb to something which can apply to both the dog and the cat: הכלב רואה את החתול ואחר כך הוא בורח. It would definitely be understood that the dog flees and not the cat. However, הכלב רואה את החתולה ואחר כך היא בורחת would sound a little off, but it would be understood that the cat flees.