miketuan

[errant zealot]

Please be patient

Our volunteers look into many questions every day; sometimes it takes them a little while to answer.

Pro tip: you can rename the thread title with `.tr <thread name>`

Make it descriptive, including relevant context, but also to the point. This way you improve your chances of getting a more relevant and specific answer.

[left hemlock]

It’s correct though it would not be normally preferred

It feels like an interjection as if you originally did not mean to add that info

« J’ai donné, à Michel, le cadeau »

[obsidian chasm]

Wouldn't à lui, perhaps not typically mid-sentence, be appropriate for moments of emphasis?

Je prête mon chien à lui [, pas à elle].

Perhaps also C'est à lui que je prête mon chien. has stronger emphasis albeit a different construction.

[left hemlock]

Not necessarily, that is where it’s ‘supposed’ to be. I should mention that the version in the middle is not necessarily emphatic, just interjecting.

[obsidian chasm]

I don't see the version in the middle as being necessarily emphatic either. I could have worded that better, but à lui, pas à elle is potentially emphatic (or at least contrastive) as it makes a distinction.

Je lui prête mon chien. would be (more) idiomatic, according to you, and Je prête mon chien à lui. wouldn't be (so much, or perhaps at all).

But Je prête mon chien à lui, pas à elle. would be perfectly idiomatic in this case? Otherwise, I don't see how else you would point out this contrast (to him, not to her) other than C'est à lui que..., pas à elle. So, maybe not ...à lui. by itself, but "...à lui, pas à elle."

I saw Le Bon Usage mentions this construction:

Emploi des formes disjointes > Formes disjointes après préposition

Dans celui-ci, c'est une alternative de grande conséquence qui est proposée : Je rends ces lettres à vous ou à lui.

[left hemlock]

It’s not about the form but the position. You mention direct objects first and then the indirect object recipient, mirroring how the third person object pronouns go direct first then indirect (le lui, not lui le). « Je prête mon chien à lui » is a perfectly grammatical sentence since that is the order: direct (mon chien) then indirect (à lui). What I was talking about was when the indirect comes first, before the direct object as asked in the original post.

However, it should be noted that your version – where it follows the natural order of direct then indirect – is not emphatic because, well, we expect the indirect object to be at the end so there’s no change to the structure. What makes a something emphatic is adding.
« Je lui prête mon chien à lui »
Since we already have an indirect object pronoun, I don’t need to put it again at the end but I do it to put an emphasis on the person to whom I am lending this dog.
« Je prête mon chien à lui, pas à elle ».
Same idea where we add another indirect object ([pas] à elle) which serves to stress the indirect object.
« C’est à lui que je prête mon chien. »
Here, we’re adding a whole other clause which is a big deal.

When it comes to the original question, there’s no repetition but since we have the indirect object first, breaking the order, we get the impression that this information is said to quickly rehash something already mentioned that we originally didn’t want to mention.

If we had wanted to include the recipient information to begin with, we would’ve inserted an indirect object pronoun :
« Je lui prête mon chien »

Hence me saying that it feels like an interjection

[obsidian chasm]

I see. I saw that you could potentially repeat the pronoun, like you said with Je lui prête mon chien, à lui., though this seems a bit redundant to my ears a little when reading, perhaps less so when speaking and with a pause. Maybe more typically with someone's name, e.g. ..., à Camille.

I understand now that you meant the order, though. But, even still, I'll just go ahead and add that I thought that Je prête mon chien à lui. would maybe be less idiomatic (perhaps even less "correct") since the object is directly a person, not a longer phrase, which (where the directly mentioned lui) would seem to "prefer" using the indirect object only (before verb) (i.e. Je lui prête mon chien.) more than with a preposition at the end. i.e. I don't particularly remember where I got this impression. But again, it's not the same concern, it seems, with à lui, pas à elle since we want to make the contrast. If we had said Je lui prête mon chien, pas (à?) elle, that might be odd or less clear (who does lui refer to, him or another girl), but I don't know, might be just fine really.

[obsidian chasm]

Right, when there is a long direct object, the shorter indirect object could be placed in front: Il a prêté à Paul l'ordinateur qu'il a acheté il y a six mois.

[obsidian chasm]

Ah, if you meant Je prête mon chien à lui at the end also feels like a bit of an interjection, too, not just the middle version, then ok. Je prête mon chien .... à lui !

[left hemlock]

It’s redundant, yes, but that’s just how French emphasises nouns and pronouns. It’s not really a matter of preference, it just depends on context. Remember, we use object pronouns to replace objects already mentioned. If whatever « lui » refers to has not been mentioned before, « à lui » is perfectly acceptable

Or, since the indirect object pronoun « lui » can either represent « à lui/elle », if we had mentioned two objects different in gender, we can use either the disjointed version for clarification or use a COI with an additional pronoun

« T’as vu Élise et Michel ? Je les ai vus à la librairie acheter de nouveaux livres.
— Ah oui ? J’ai prêté de l’argent à elle, ça me parait qu’elle en utilise pour acheter des livres. »

[left hemlock]

Alternatively you can go « Je lui ai prêté de l’argent à elle »

[left hemlock]

Yeah though there’s a subordinate clause there which ‘fixes’ the order

If you use adjectives instead, you can either have the COI in front (as it’s relatively shorter) or in the back (its normal order)

[obsidian chasm]

That sounds plausible. Still, I don't necessarily see why à lui or à elle on its own in a phrase, like Je parle à elle. is not idiomatic in most cases other than perhaps because it is directly mentioning the person through the pronoun alone, like I said previously; instead, the preference or perhaps typical rule being Je lui parle. or Je lui parle à elle. (There are also the verb exceptions like penser → Je pense à elle and not Je lui pense, but that's a separate issue.)

I suppose it's just that way, but it makes me a little wary of saying the context-dependent J'ai prêté de l'argent à elle (with à elle) instead of including the "normally required" lui also, as you said, with Je lui ai prêté de l'argent à elle.

I might think how I speak him. would sound unnatural, but I don't know if it's fully comparable. I'd have to think about it more.

[left hemlock]

Again, it is idiomatic; it just depends on context. If the recipient is already known beforehand and we're not losing information, we can totally use the object pronoun. However, if both are not true (i.e. the recipient has not been mentioned), then using « à lui/elle » is totally normal

[left hemlock]

It's not

English has a weird quirk called a dative shift for double-object verbs like this

Where the recipient will 'lose' its preposition and we'll instead have two direct objects if the recipient is the first element

I lent some money to her
I lent her some money
(the preposition 'to' disappeared)

This will never ever happen in French
J'ai prêté de l'argent à elle
J'ai prêté à elle de l'argent