Question on using the word 'better'

Hi Miriam,

Actually "had better" is NOT a modal verb. Some authors call it a "modal idiom" (The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield), or a idiomatic modal.

There are many English Grammar websites that talk about "had better" as a Modal Verb.

For example:
http://www.englishpage.com/modals/modalintro.html
It is said that "For the purposes of this tutorial, we have included some expressions which are not Modal Verbs including had better, have to and have got to. These expressions are closely related to Modals in meaning and are often interchanged with them."

So, you are right, it is not a modal verb. But it is "treated" like one..

Confusion in this topic is understandable. I remember having had a hard time when I had to study the classification of such verbs according to different authors/grammarians.

Quirk et al., for example, consider the following verbs modals: can, could, may, might, shall, should, will, would, must, ought to, used to, need, dare.
Hugh Gettin and David Brazil offer similar classifications.

Eckersley & Eckersley call modals "special finites". They say there are twelve of them (be, have, can, do, shall, will, may, must, need, ought to, dare, used to). They also say that twenty-four is also a possible number if we consider "other derived forms (excluding the imperative) for tense, number and person, viz. am, is, are, was, were; has, had; does, did; should; would; could; might.
I personally find this classification a bit messy.

Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman speak of "modals" (can, could, will, shall, must, should, ought to, would, may, might) and "phrasal modals" (be able to, be going to, be about to, have to, have got to, be to, used to, be allowed to, be permitted to).

Some authors (Stockwell, I think, among them) speak of "modals" and "semi-modals".

R. A. Jacobs (tihs is the one I prefer) speaks of "core modals" (may, might, can, could, will, would, shall, should, must, ought to, need, dare) and "periphrastic modals" (multiword verb idioms). In the category of periphrastic modals he includes forms such as be likely to, be due to, be apt to, be willing to, be unable to, besides the ones mention by Celce-Murcia as phrasal modals. He does mention had better and would rather as being "similar" to core modals; yet he doesn't say they *are* modals.

So, I guess it all comes down to what author you follow -if you choose to follow one in particular. Probably this is no big deal really, it's just that I'm always paying attention to tiny details... perhaps too much attention. Don't let me bother you with this any longer.
The day *I* write a grammar book, I'll call things anything I like! ~chuckles~

Miriam

Thank you for an interesting discussion, Pem and learner.

Have sweet dreams, Pemmican

When you write your own Grammar Book, Miriam, let us know! I am sure it will be very useful!

Miriam,

The book is by Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey Pullum.

The capital letters in square brackets refer to a list of criteria on the preceding page concerning auxiliary verbs vs. modal auxiliaries. Here's the list:

AUXILIARY PROPERTIES
Primary verb negation.
Subject-auxiliary inversion
Emphatic polarity
Stranding
Exclusion of "do" in code
Precede adverb/quantifier
Negative forms
Reduced forms

MODAL AUXILIARY PROPERTIES
Only primary forms
[J] No agreement
Only bare infinitival complement
Can occur in remote apodosis
[M] Modally remote preterite in main clause

Examples are given for each item which I've omitted for brevity.