Can if I want

the object of a negated verb is often transposed between the negating modifier and the verb.

Yeah, only if the object is a pronoun.

e.g. 古之人不余欺也！ 《石钟山记》苏轼

保民而王，莫之能御也。 《齐桓晋文之事》<孟子>

So, 吾不犬養 should be "犬，吾不之蓄/豢也" or "吾不蓄/豢犬"(I guess classical Chinese for raising dogs should be 蓄犬 or 豢犬)

Thanks. I knew I was missing something there. I'll edit the entry. But is there anything wrong with 養?

I'm not sure. I think it's grammatically ok, but I'v rarely seen 养犬 in classical literature, in stead, 蓄 is much more commonly used when 鸡、犬 are reffered.

e.g.

1\养猫以捕鼠，不可以无鼠而养不捕之猫；蓄犬以防奸，不可以无奸而蓄不吠之犬。-- 苏东坡<猫犬>

2\ 不敬祖先，不蓄鸡犬    -- 清碑类钞-在里教

anyway 养犬 souds like modern Chinese.

云 is considered a contraction of 曰之

if that is true, 花 古人不云 = 花，古人不曰之. Obveriously, it's not grammatically OK.

There is one I could find:

野老歌 张籍

老农家贫在山住，耕种山田三四亩。

苗疏税多不得食，输入官仓化为土。

岁暮锄犁傍空室，呼儿登山收橡实。

西江贾客珠百斛，船中养犬长食肉。

So I think it should be fine. Just like 我是人. One may say it sounds like modern Chinese, but I think it is still okay to use in Classical Chinese writing.