I think it's simply to help people unfamiliar with gender specific language understand the difference between bella and bello, as in, one is feminine and the other is masculine. Since it is more common in most English speaking society these days to use beautiful to describe a female rather than a male, and vice versa with handsome, I think it's just easier to explain. Some people might be confused if beautiful was given as a definition - thinking it a less manly word. Let's just say they both mean practically the same thing it's just grammatically correct to use this one for masculine or that one for feminine.
well since I am not anative English speaker I can provide another look at this: when it says "bello", it is most likely to mean "handsome" rather than "beautiful", because "beautiful" is more often used for a woman - that being caused by the fact that calling a man "beautiful" just sounds weird and therefore "handsome" is a masculine alternative for that word.
I think it's just to make things easier to understand. To show that it can mean beautiful but in a masculine way. So that people learning know that it is inappropriate to use this word to describe a female. It'd have to be Bella. It should technically be correct but then imagine how many people would miss use the word, thinking they could use it to say a woman was beautiful or a girl. It's just easier. Most of us are old enough to understand why they made this choice. Just clarifies things for people having trouble with the language.
You can say this exactly the same to male and to female ones! Maybe is nowadays still less common that a female approach a male first, but, if she does it, what is the difference with other speeches? "Hey man! I need to light a cigarette... thanks but I don't smoke, it was just a trick to let you speak and let me value how much am I really interested on you...": contorted way but could fit the idea that females be contorted so to overcome the light irritation. "Please could you help me? I need to go at this address.... and the more I am not sure of this handwriting... uh... very complicated way... will I succeed?": so if the man or boy had no time he has to lost an appointment in which he would gain a graduation, or money, and then you will like him less, or anyway be less comfortable if living with him, and he would detest you for that inconvenience if you just want to copulate or treat him like a pet. Or you will lose an occasion if he won't or cannot give you much attention for being in a hurry or being in low spirits or God knows what in that moment.
There was an elderly man I met who spoke in fractured English/Italian. He kept greeting everyone as Hello bello/bella. "Hello bello" made me grin! I remember thinking that it should have been in a cellphone commercial it was so fun to say! Sorry I know that's kinda random, but I just felt like sharing it. :)
This is so wrong! DL is looking for us to clarify whether or not we understand how to use bello/bella. DL gives us "sweetheart" as a possible translation for "bello," yet marked "Hello sweetheart!" incorrect for "Ciao bello." In American English, "sweetheart" has no gender reference. (The following e.g., "He was her high school sweetheart before they became married," is perfectly correct English.)
Ok guys, I know this is not the English course, but this is just too strange. In my native language (Croatian) we use commas a lot more than in English sentences, but in this sentence "Hello, handsome" there shouldn't be any comma, but there it is!
Even the Italian sentence "Ciao bello" is without comma, which sounds natural. Adding comma just sounds like unnatural putting two words together that are no related.
Always use a comma when directly addressing someone/something
It could be, but why not, on the other side, "handsome" means "bello" when referring a male person.
"Bello": containing beauty, pleasure to relate with, usually in sight, but nevertheless in hearing, listening, talking, contracting, playing, walking, acting in general.
While good smells are "good": "buoni". "Buono"="good" is more moral than "bello", yet both adjectives means, if you just meditate about them, both good and beautiful: the latter sublining an evident goodness that does not require consideration about diachronic time.
It seems that anciently people lost this conscience, and it is a very pity that some art reviewers and mainstream mass media strive to let us believe that those would be completely distinct categories!