I think that's correct but it's a mostly awkward thing to say in English. The only way I can think that it sounds right is if you are trying to point out a dog and the other person hasn't noticed it to the point that you are frustrated with trying to point it out to them. An extremely specific meaning.
I can hear a short pause in the audio.
But there can be joining of prepositions with the following word. For example, take this note from Wikipedia:
One-syllable prepositions usually form a unit with following words. Therefore, the stress moves to the prepositions, ˈPraha ('Prague') → ˈdo Prahy ('to Prague'). This rule is not always applied in words which have four or more syllables: e.g. either ˈna koloˌnádě or na ˈkoloˌnádě ('on the colonnade') are possible.
(grammatically) masculine animals are normally animate. Even insects (brouci, komáři), fish (kapři, žraloci), molluscs (hlemýždi, šneci)... Viruses (viry) and bacteria (bacily, koky) are inanimate.
It wasn't always that way, in Old Czech you will find accusatives "na svůj kůň" (onto his horse) instead of "na svého koně".
Could I say "Ne, toho psa ty nevidíš"?. I'm a Brazilian native and in my language we can change the order in someway, although it is considered to be more formal or inusual. In fact, many of the sentences I see here, if translated literally, would be more similar to a erudite speaking here. For me, the most natural version would be "Ne, ty nevidíš toho psa", is it right?
Yes, it sort of works that way. Unfortunately I do not know any Portuguese so I cannot compare.
"Ne, ty nevidíš toho psa." is the neutral word order. We probably have a reason to stress the verb here. It can be done in thw same way English does it, just stress the intonation. No, you do NOT see the dog. Ne, ty NEVIDÍŠ toho psa.
Or you can olace the verb sentence-final. That makes it the focus of the senrence, it stresses it. "Ne, ty toho psa nevidíš." or as you proposed "Ne, toho psa ty nevidíš.". These two are almost the same.