Is this the verb we'd normally use for a dog chewing something or is it a bit stilted?
Agreed - "bit" sounds to me like it could be a single bite. If it's bad enough to throw them out, I'd expect them to be chewed, not just bitten.
I have reported "chewed" as should be accepted. It may not be a literal translation but I assume it's what the sentence means.
------ yep . . .
Big 1 aug 20
I threw OUT the shoes that this dog bit
American english speaker here. Curious about the semantic difference between bit and chewed in french. We definitely would say chewed, as a single bite would not suffice to throw away a pair of otherwise perfectly decent shoes
Australian here. The dog bites a living thing, a person, another dog. The dog chews objects.
This Canadian also finds the choice of "bit" inappropriate. Dogs frequently "chew" shoes.
Why is "mordues" used here instead of "mordu" ?
The past participle agrees with the direct object when the auxiliary is avoir and if the direct object (chaussures) comes before the verb in the sentence.
→ Le chien a mordu les chaussures.
→ Voilà les chaussures qu'il a mordues.
Thank you. This makes perfect sense.
somewhere else in this lesson "a mordues" was translated as chewed
oh come on it's CHEWED!!
The French do have a word for "chew" = "mâcher". Would that also be better French? However it would be feasible for a dog to destroy a delicate shoe with a single bite!