"He is mean to animals."

Translation: Ele é mau com os animais.

[FigTwig]

How would you say "He is bad with animals" in the sense that animals just don't trust him or that he doesn't know how to handle them?

[paulconsul]

Why couldn't you say "mau aos animais" instead of "mau com..."?

[Paulenrique]

the right preposition here is "com", not "a". Prepositions differ from language to language.

[ladyofrocklake]

When I typed "He is mean to animals" into Google translate they gave me "Ele e(with an accent) mau para os animais" so why is that wrong???

[Paulenrique]

Sometimes Google is not correct. This is the literal translation, but we use "ser mau com".

[Deniz680757]

Is it not "ser mau com" instead of "ser mal com"? What is the difference in everyday speaking?

[jimwray]

What is wrong with "ele é malvado para os animais"?

[Paulenrique]

This is a literal translation of "to", but prepositions change from language to language. The best option here is "Com".

[Procrastigator]

Is the article "os" absolutely necessary here, or should "Ele é mau com animais" be accepted?

[Paulenrique]

Yes, you have to use the article.

[SnackaJack]

But why? I really don't understand when It's necessary and when it's not. Eu quero saber

[amidorm]

I'll ask here, but I see it happened a lot on duolingo and it's super confusing.
Isn't "ele é" means that he is permanently something.
So why would it be "ele está" while being mean to animal is something that let's hope can be temporarily.
I see that doulongo doesn't give to much emphasis on when to use what.

[Paulenrique]

For personality traits, you should use "ser".

[mbukha]

Isn't "cruel" a more accurate translation than "mau"?

[AlejandroSV81]

is cruel a bad translation?