Translation:The dog wears no clothes so as not to be warm.
So by using 'zodat', this actually means that the dog is intentionally not wearing any clothes to avoid feeling warm? Is that right? If 'dus' is used here, then this would mean the dog is not warm as a result of it not wearing any clothes (i.e., not intentional)?
Very good question.
I find it odd that the system accepted my translation as correct. What I wrote (just by guessing): "The dog wears no clothes, so he is not warm".
The system offers another correct translation: "The dog wears no clothes so as not to be warm."
According to a native Dutch speaker (just asked), my translation was incorrect and only the system's answer is acceptable. The word 'zodat' can be used only to signify a purpose, not a consequence.
I think the ambiguity is in the English, not the Dutch. It's probably technically incorrect, yet not uncommon, in English to leave out "as" or "that" with so.
So when referring to purpose, you might say: "...so as not to be", "...so that he isn't", OR "...so he isn't".
The last could be referring to purpose OR consequence, i.e. might mean: "so that", OR: "therefore".
Yes, there is some logic to that: basically "het" plays the role of the direct object, which always follows directly after the verb, coming even before "niet". For example: "Ik heb het boek niet" - "I do not have the book"
"Warm" takes the role of an adverb and comes after "niet".
They have slightly different meanings. 'Hot' is more extreme and often carries a connotation of danger or pain. 'Warm' often has a more positive, pleasant meaning and is more mild. Summer in the Netherlands is warm. Summer in Suriname is hot. But these are not absolute rules. You could say that a fire is warm if you mean that it is pleasant to sit near it, even though the fire itself is actually very hot. I think for this exercise, the translation should just be 'warm'.
I didn't mean those. Saying "$thing is warm/hot" is obvious — just as you explained.
But I kind of felt like "I'm warm/hot" might be an exception here, because it feels like it's just short for "I'm feeling warm/hot", rather than it being literally about that my body is searing hot and could melt iron or something.
But that's just my non-native meta impressions of these... Hence me asking.
Seriously? People say "I'm hot" all the time without meaning their in pain - though it does have the negative connotation of being uncomfortably warm. Saying "I'm warm" generally has the positive connotation (as you say in your first comment above), and I would say the situation you describe (using warm by itself to describe discomfort) unnatural - "too warm", or "a bit warm" would work.
If you are talking about him wearing clothes or not, you're already anthropomorphising somewhat - i.e. treating a nonhuman subject as human. Not sure that has any bearing on why it's "hij", but at least it's consistent. If the sentence implies that he might wear clothes, and perhaps even that it's his choice, it seems reasonable that he's a "he", not an "it".
I've discussed this elsewhere, but is it only because it's a dog that you find it confusing? I admit there's something rather absurd about a dog (who wouldn't normally wear clothes anyway) NOT wearing them, so as not to be warm. But maybe it's a children's story or something? If the subject had been a person, would it make more sense? Or is the confusion because you assume "warm" is always a pleasant state, so nothing and nobody would choose to avoid it? "Warm" can be comfortable or uncomfortable - it's just a matter of degree. So somebody (or, in this case, the dog) might prefer to be cool.