Translation:He played with a rhinoceros and now he cannot move anymore.
I was just going to ask exactly what type of "move" does "bewegen zich" translate to, so I'm going to make sure - Is it "move" as in "move your finger", to induce movement, or as in "move yourself from point A to point B"? Or both? It's definitely not as in "move apartments", I think, because I seem to recall that one is "verhuizen"...
It can be both. However it'll usually mean moving body parts. For moving around there are a lot of alternatives, I think gaan (to go) zich begeven naar (move oneself) are most frequent. Most other forms are linked to a specific means of transport (lopen, fietsen, rijden) And you're right about verhuizen.
- Ik beweeg mijn lichaamsdelen = I move my body parts
- Ik beweeg me in haar richting = I move in her direction/towards her
- Er zit beweging in de onderhandelingen = There is movement in the negotiations
- Een auto heeft veel bewegende delen = A car has many moving parts
- Kan je je auto verplaatsen/verzetten*, hij staat in de weg = Can you move your car, it is in the way
- Ik verplaats/verzet* de stoel = I move the chair
- Ik verhuis naar Maastricht = I move to Maastricht
- Ik beweeg me voort (verb voortbewegen) = I propel myself
- Ik begeef me naar zijn huis (mostly used in written form) = I move myself to his place/his house
- Ik ga naar zijn huis = I go to his place/his house
The verb verplaatsen is linked to the noun plaats (place), it means to move to another place. The verb verzetten is linked to the verb zetten (to put/to place). They basically mean the same thing, verplaatsen is a bit more formal and verzetten only works with objects that staan (car, chair, glass, beacon are all fine, but it doesn't work with carpet, cutlery, book, marble > they use verleggen, linked to liggen) These words have the prefix ver- which is not linked to the word ver (far).
There is actually a story by Leslie Charteris in which Simon Templar (The Saint) saves a guy from a rhino. The guy was tricked into engaging the rhino in a bullfight after having bragged about being able to beat anything with two horns - he didn't exclude horns in tandem! Can't remember the name of the story now.
Not wrong, but sounds a little strange. We would usually use "anymore". To do something no more tends to give more of a theatrical, poetic, or archaic feel. But if, as the sentence suggests, someone has had a fatal encounter with a rhino, it might not be excessively theatrical to say: "And then he moved no more", as it's a rather theatrical death! It wouldn't be the way a newspaper would report it, though.