Quick question. What does "You'd better leave" mean? You would/ you had? How does "had" work with "leave"? Shouldn't it be "left" in that case?

“You had better …” means “You should …” or “You need to …” usually with a threatening connotation.

You had. But it's rarely said in full, it's almost always "You'd". It is very insistant. A strong "suggestion", which is effectively a demand, an order, a command. It's the same as "You must leave", really. It is *necessary* that you leave. Now. Typically after you've upset someone, or done something inappropriate, like drinking too much and vomiting on the bride at a wedding. You could also say it as a caution/warning to a friend, like, you'd better leave now, or you will be late. You'd better leave, or you'll miss your train.

I don't think you can break it down. It's idiomatic, had better + infinitive form is simply what it is. Note that omitting "had" is a common solecism. You will often hear "You better leave."

"Had" has more than one definition. One is the past tense (like you're assuming) in a sentence like "He had left." Though, with the "should have" phrasing, it becomes "He should *have* left." instead. The other definition is as part of the phrase "had better," which is one unit. "Better" in this context is being used in a specific way here. You can also use it without the "had" in a phrase like "You better go." It's also not... technically proper English? But it's used frequently. The proper version is "It would be best if you left." (Which is a less direct way of saying "You should go.") You'll also hear it as "had best" (Like "You *had best* be on your way.") But that's very regional and is probably considered the least correct of all of these as far as "proper English" goes.

It's not necessarily that "had" is working with "left," here, it's working with "better". "Had better" is more of the phrase, you could sub "leave" with any verb. E.g. "if you're on a sinking ship, you'd better know how to swim". I can't think of other instances to say "had ____" like this, so i suggest just thinking of "had better" or "-'d better" as a substitution for "should" or "must" that carries more severity while still being "optional". Here's a bit more of, to me, what the differences are: "You *should* leave": suggestive, it's in your best interest to leave. "You *must* leave": there is no other option besides leaving. "You*'d better* leave": if you don't leave, something bad will happen. It's almost threatening.

“If you don’t leave something bad is going to happen” Could be something as mild as *if you don’t leave now you’ll be late* or *if you don’t leave now you’ll get stuck in the storm* Or could be as serious as *if you don’t leave you’re going to get beaten up*

Others have covered the explanation pretty well, but I want to add in that you may also come across "you'd best," officially in phrases like "you'd best be leaving." Same meaning.

This isn't about "had" or "had... leave", it's about "had better". "Had better" is like "should" or "need to." Usually the had is contracted to 'd. Had better is a set phrase, had is not used to mean should / this kind of warning instruction unless it's "had better". But you could also say "have gotta" to mean the same thing.

It is "had", but it's a unique use of the word in combination with "better." in modern times, it's common for people you omit the word "had" entirely, so instead of "you had better behave" or "you'd better behave", people will often just say "you better behave". It is all the same thing, though.

As others have said, "you'd better" is an idiomatic way of saying "you should." The way I understand it, and expanded version of the phrase would be, "it would be better if you..." meaning the consequences of not doing that thing would be worse.

“Had better,” which is usually contracted, has the same meaning as “ought to” or “should,” but more informal. Like them, it takes an infinitive, which can be dropped to infer the main verb from context. I don’t know the original etymology. (Wild ignorant guess, since -*’d* can be either *had* or *would*, this might have started out as a homophone of “would \[be\] better \[off to\]”? At least that might help you remember it.)

It's idiomatic. This is not the way that "have" is usually used. Just think that "had better" = "should". It's not the past perfect, so present-tense "leave" is fine.

*You'd better leave* is phrase thats used to state the listener is unwelcome. Its a command. And a veiled thread. "You'd better leave [or things are about to get ugly]"

Go now.

It means GTFO

'Had' is a pure subjunctive here, equivalent (more or less) to 'should have'. So it's followed by the infinitive, 'leave' (less the 'to', obviously). It's impeccable English. To generalize, the pure subjunctive in English is a curious little beast, seldom encountered and often said to be at risk of extinction: yet in certain usages it is common and in a few it is essential. So it's a nuisance for people learning the language - most of the time they can ignore it completely but just occasionally, it's indispensable. Were this not so, the language would be easier. But as things are, it is essential that it be mastered.

Hi I'm currently improving my English grammar so excuse me if you think that I asked a dumb question. "You'd better leave" Why is it had? I am confused since why is it not you should leave? I don't know how to construct the sentence I'm sorry. I just want to know why is it had, as a beginner it sounds weird to me.

Its kind of an expression its like a way of saying “you should leave” but the person is really telling you to leave