I think it's somewhat idiomatic. Looking at it literally, I got "We should better go home now" and just figured it should be more accurately translated as "we had better go home now." Plus I've heard my German friends construct similar sentences in English.
it is not in the past,,,, its just than english can use the same verbs in two differnt tenses.......a better translation i believe would be = we should really go home now,,
It is not clear for me, the difference between translations of should and would ? Thx
I guess if you HAD to literally translate this sentence into English, we could say "Better that we should go home now." But it's easier to just throw "should" out of this sentence in English and say "We better go home now."
Can any natives confirm that you use better in this way? I'm just surprised that this idea of using better is not just in English . . . it makes me pleasantly surprised and happy haha.
It sounds fine to me. "we better go home now" or "we should better go home now" are both acceptable. I think the 'better' intensifies the sentence, as in whoever is saying it wants to leave as soon as possible.
"We better go home now" doesn't sound right grammatically... there's no verb. I think it should be "We HAD better go home now", or "We SHOULD go home now", leaving out the better.
Agreed. The correct Eng. is:as expessed by picadilly "had better" or "should go ..." . Yes, the D. translation is a very common expression, but it's not considered proper in written Eng. If D starts accepting and promoting non standard Eng. it will have to accept every regional, slang etc expression from evey Eng. speaking nation. Let's stick to formal, proper Eng. for learning purposes.