Quote:
Originally Posted by Comfy.n
In Brazilian Portuguese we have this colloquial word "Caras", that can be used to address a group of male individuals, although it's not unusual for it to be used also as a vocative referring to women, as well. (I'm sure Issybird wouldn't feel comfortable with this, lol)
The primary meaning of the word "cara", however, is "face" as in "facebook". There's also a celebrities/gossip magazine named Caras.
|
Thank you. I was going to reply that I am mainly interested in translation in the opposite direction, but I see that the image you attached does precisely that.
So there is at least one major language with a direct analog to "guy" with at least one source that translates that to "man" as more preferred than "guy". No doubt that some Brazilian Portuguese would object to "caras" just as much as some English speakers object to the use of "guys" to address a mixed gender group. But I think there is a consensus here that in current English usage "men" is significantly worse than "guys" in this context.
Nothing has been proved, but I am satisfied that the original gaffe was innocent enough and that the real problem is the failure of the OP to take the complaints to heart, and to instead double down, then go to patronizing demand to "Chill", then express surprise and annoyance that "Chill" didn't put and end to it like some magic spell.
What is really ironic is that part of the original diatribe against audiobooks
and the people that listen to them had the phrase "words matter". Just as one small example, what was the total damage to society by children inferring that the title "mailman" means that women can't be mail carriers? Such assumptions harden over time partially contributing to attitudes held by those in power of professions taken to be the pinnacle of logic, reason, and facts that women can not possibly be qualified (or hired) to practice law, science, medicine, mathematics, etc.