"had better" seems to put a lot of emphasis on the <negative> consequences or <bad> results.

< Previous | Next >

Tenacious Learner

Senior Member
Hello teachers,
I am asking myself if the definition for "had better" below is appropriate?

"Had better" is stronger than “should/ought to”, although it is not as strong as "must". We use it to give a strong recommendation in a particular situation. If the strong recommendation is not followed, possible results or consequences will happen.

My ideas:
Most explanations that I've read about "had better" seem to put a lot of emphasis on the negative consequences or bad results.
I feel that "had better" should stress that the advice is strong and is the best thing to do in a particular situation. It may not always be so bad!
Consider the following example:
It is 1 p.m. I'd better put the lunch in the oven so that it is hot by the time children return from school.

Though in a different context, it may imply a threat/bad consequences.
You'd better not argue with your boss again. He's very angry with you.

That said. I think the "definition" above includes both meanings because of the word "results" without the adjective "bad" which to me is more neutral, and the word "consequences" that to me sound a bit more like something bad or a thread.

Thanks in advance.
  • < Previous | Next >