# could only afford to have



## Joseph A

Hello,
Could you please tell me why "afford" is correct in the sentence below though the sentence is affirmative/positive?
Eg. But of course, the people who worked in those factories had little money and *could only afford to have * their homes in cheap, dirty areas close to their places of work.
If it is okay, are the usages below also correct?
He *can afford to buy* a car*.*
He *affords to buy *a car*.*
P.S. The Longman Dictionary says "It's usually used with negative sentences (couldn't/can't afford)"
Here is the screenshot of it:


----------



## lingobingo

It _is_ usually used in negative contexts: I need one but *can’t* afford it! But that’s just saying I *don’t* have enough money to buy it.

It’s also entirely valid in a positive sense. I need one and *can* easily afford it – which is saying I *do* have enough money to buy it.

And the same applies if you’re saying you can or can’t afford the time, etc.


----------



## DonnyB

Joseph A said:


> Could you please tell me why "afford" is correct in the sentence below though the sentence is affirmative/positive?
> Eg. But of course, the people who worked in those factories had little money and *could only afford to have * their homes in cheap, dirty areas closeto their places of work.


It's because although the sentence has a verb in the positive, the presence of "only" makes the underlying meaning negative - "they *couldn't* afford anything _except_ ... ".

But although it's commonly used in a negative context, it's not exclusively so, and you can certainly say something like "The new computer I wanted has just come down in price, so I can now afford to get it!"


Joseph A said:


> He *affords to buy *a car*.*


No, that doesn't work.  You almost always need some form of "can" or "could" with it (i.e. _be able to_ afford).


----------



## Joseph A

lingobingo said:


> It _is_ usually used in negative contexts: I need one but *can’t* afford it! But that’s just saying I *don’t* have enough money to buy it.
> 
> It’s also entirely valid in a positive sense. I need one and *can* easily afford it – which is saying I *do* have enough money to buy it.
> 
> And the same applies if you’re saying you can or can’t afford the time, etc.


Thanks a lot.
A. My original sentence says:
...could only afford to have...
That means they had little money to buy their homes...
It's not negative.
B. I have another question regarding "afford". Is "afford" always correct with interrogative sentences as follows?
1. Did he afford to buy a car?
2. Can he afford to buy a car?
I'm sorry to bother you.


----------



## Joseph A

DonnyB said:


> It's because although the sentence has a verb in the positive, the presence of "only" makes the underlying meaning negative - "they *couldn't* afford anything _except_ ... ".
> 
> But although it's commonly used in a negative context, it's not exclusively so, and you can certainly say something like "The new computer I wanted has just come down in price, so I can now afford to get it!"
> 
> No, that doesn't work.  You almost always need some form of "can" or "could" with it (i.e. _be able to_ afford).


Thank you so much, Donny.
Your explanation was superb.


----------



## PaulQ

It may help if you understand the following:

To afford *to verb* something = to bear the cost or disadvantage *of doing *something


----------



## Joseph A

PaulQ said:


> It may help if you understand the following:
> 
> To afford *to verb* something = to bear the cost or disadvantage *of doing *something


Thanks a lot.
I already knew that, but its usage was difficult for me.


----------



## lingobingo

Joseph A said:


> A. My original sentence says:
> ...could only afford to have...
> That means they had little money to buy their homes...
> It's not negative.
> B. I have another question regarding "afford". Is "afford" always correct with interrogative sentences as follows?
> 1. Did he afford to buy a car?
> 2. Can he afford to buy a car?


*Only* _is_ negative. It qualifies an amount (in the sense of making it “less absolute”), implying that it’s insufficient. 

But that’s irrelevant anyway. As I said in #2 (commenting in general about *afford*), it’s used both positively and negatively, but almost always in the sense of the _ability_ or otherwise to afford something. It would be extremely unusual for “he affords” – or any similar construction, such as “does he afford?” – to make any sense. 

But note that another meaning of *afford* is to provide an ability or possibility to do something. For example, “this affords me the chance to [do whatever]” means that it gives me the chance to do it.


----------



## PaulQ

Joseph A said:


> He *affords to buy *a car*.*


If you substitute "to bear the cost or disadvantage *of doing *something" in this example, you get
He *bears the cost or disadvantage* *of buying *a car.

You will see that this is grammatically correct, and thus "He *affords to buy *a car*." is also correct. However, it does need context:*

"John is in trouble, his new job requires that he owns a car and a computer. He *affords to buy* a car, but then he does not have enough money to buy a computer."

"John is in trouble, his new job requires that he owns a car and a computer. He *bears the cost or disadvantage* *of buying *a car., but he does not have enough money to buy a computer."

To afford is not particularly common in the simple present and/or without a modal verb but this does not make it wrong.

You must also bear in mind that "to afford" is not necessarily always about money.


----------



## Joseph A

lingobingo said:


> *Only* _is_ negative. It qualifies an amount (in the sense of making it “less absolute”), implying that it’s insufficient.
> 
> But that’s irrelevant anyway. As I said in #2 (commenting in general about *afford*), it’s used both positively and negatively, but almost always in the sense of the _ability_ or otherwise to afford something. It would be extremely unusual for “he affords” – or any similar construction, such as “does he afford?” – to make any sense.
> 
> But note that another meaning of *afford* is to provide an ability or possibility to do something. For example, “this affords me the chance to [do whatever]” means that it gives me the chance to do it.


Thanks a lot, lingobingo.


PaulQ said:


> If you substitute "to bear the cost or disadvantage *of doing *something" in this example, you get
> He *bears the cost or disadvantage* *of buying *a car.
> 
> You will see that this is grammatically correct, and thus "He *affords to buy *a car*." is also correct. However, it does need context:*
> 
> "John is in trouble, his new job requires that he owns a car and a computer. He *affords to buy* a car, but then he does not have enough money to buy a computer."
> 
> "John is in trouble, his new job requires that he owns a car and a computer. He *bears the cost or disadvantage* *of buying *a car., but he does not have enough money to buy a computer."
> 
> To afford is not particularly common in the simple present and/or without a modal verb but this does not make it wrong.
> 
> You must also bear in mind that "to afford" is not necessarily always about money.


Thanks a lot, PaulQ.


----------



## DonnyB

PaulQ said:


> If you substitute "to bear the cost or disadvantage *of doing *something" in this example, you get
> He *bears the cost or disadvantage* *of buying *a car.
> 
> You will see that this is grammatically correct, and thus "He *affords to buy *a car*." is also correct. However, it does need context:*
> 
> "John is in trouble, his new job requires that he owns a car and a computer. He *affords to buy* a car, but then he does not have enough money to buy a computer."
> 
> "John is in trouble, his new job requires that he owns a car and a computer. He *bears the cost or disadvantage* *of buying *a car., but he does not have enough money to buy a computer."
> 
> To afford is not particularly common in the simple present and/or without a modal verb but this does not make it wrong.
> 
> You must also bear in mind that "to afford" is not necessarily always about money.


Well I beg to disagree, and I would mark "He affords to buy a car" as wrong, even in the slightly contrived context you've conjured up there. Nobody I know would say that: it's hideously unidiomatic. 

It would just about work for me as "He manages to afford a car,  ..." but even there I'd probably do it as "He manages to buy a car" -  but certainly not "He affords to buy a car".


----------



## Joseph A

DonnyB said:


> Well I beg to disagree, and I would mark "He affords to buy a car" as wrong, even in the slightly contrived context you've conjured up there. Nobody I know would say that: it's hideously unidiomatic.
> 
> It would just about work for me as "He manages to afford a car,  ..." but even there I'd probably do it as "He manages to buy a car" -  but certainly not "He affords to buy a car".


Thanks a lot.


----------



## PaulQ

DonnyB said:


> Nobody I know would say that:


Donny: this limits your sample to those in your circle. Among whom, I would guess that there are those who, from time to time may use the historic present.


DonnyB said:


> even in the slightly contrived context you've conjured up there.


You will be aware that we often ask for context, and it is sometimes not what had been imagined. It is no worse for that. English depends heavily on context.

What do you see wrong with
"He affords to run a car but not to pay his rent."?


----------



## tunaafi

PaulQ said:


> What do you see wrong with
> "He affords to run a car but not to pay his rent."?


It is simply not natural English. Like Donny, I would mark this as incorrect. This is natural: "He can afford to run a car but not to pay his rent."


----------



## lingobingo

I too think it’s so unidiomatic as to sound wrong. As I said in #8…


lingobingo said:


> … about *afford*), it’s used both positively and negatively, but almost always in the sense of the _ability_ or otherwise to afford something. It would be extremely unusual for “he affords” – or any similar construction, such as “does he afford?” – to make any sense.


----------



## DonnyB

PaulQ said:


> Donny: this limits your sample to those in your circle. Among whom, I would guess that there are those who, from time to time may use the historic present.
> 
> You will be aware that we often ask for context, and it is sometimes not what had been imagined. It is no worse for that. English depends heavily on context.
> 
> What do you see wrong with
> "He affords to run a car but not to pay his rent."?


This has nothing to do with people I, or anyone else, knows using the historic present.

I see everything wrong with "He affords to run a car but not to pay his rent."  I would not contemplate using that, nor advising anyone else to. Three of us now have said that trying to use the simple present tense of 'afford' in the way you're proposing there is unidiomatic and unnatural to the point of being _wrong_.

How many more votes do you need to convince you that trying to suggest it to Joseph wasn't perhaps quite such as good an idea as you thought it was?


----------



## PaulQ

DonnyB said:


> How many more votes


There are many things that are not democratic in this world. We will have to differ.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

My vote goes to "He can/could, etc. afford to (do something)." [or "He can afford a(n) + noun.".]


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

lingobingo said:


> But note that another meaning of *afford* is to provide an ability or possibility to do something. For example, “this affords me the chance to [do whatever]” means that it gives me the chance to do it.


----------



## Joseph A

PaulQ said:


> Donny: this limits your sample to those in your circle. Among whom, I would guess that there are those who, from time to time may use the historic present.
> 
> You will be aware that we often ask for context, and it is sometimes not what had been imagined. It is no worse for that. English depends heavily on context.
> 
> What do you see wrong with
> "He affords to run a car but not to pay his rent."?


Thanks.


tunaafi said:


> It is simply not natural English. Like Donny, I would mark this as incorrect. This is natural: "He can afford to run a car but not to pay his rent."


Thanks.
If I split your sentence as follows:
He can afford to run a car.
Is it natural?
Or must the second part "but..." be added to be natural?



lingobingo said:


> I too think it’s so unidiomatic as to sound wrong. As I said in #8…


Thanks.


DonnyB said:


> This has nothing to do with people I, or anyone else, knows using the historic present.
> 
> I see everything wrong with "He affords to run a car but not to pay his rent."  I would not contemplate using that, nor advising anyone else to. Three of us now have said that trying to use the simple present tense of 'afford' in the way you're proposing there is unidiomatic and unnatural to the point of being _wrong_.
> 
> How many more votes do you need to convince you that trying to suggest it to Joseph wasn't perhaps quite such as good an idea as you thought it was?


Thanks.


PaulQ said:


> There are many things that are not democratic in this world. We will have to differ.
> Thanks.





ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> *My vote goes to "He can/could, etc. afford to (do something)." [or "He can afford a(n) + noun.".]*


Thanks.
Could you and the other members too answer my question I addressed to tunaafi?
You said, "My vote goes to..."
My original sentence included "only" and tunaafi's included "but...". My question is:
Is the sentence below natural as it stands?
He can afford to buy a car.
I'm sorry to bother you all😯.


----------



## PaulQ

Joseph A said:


> Is the sentence below natural as it stands?
> He can afford to buy a car.


----------



## Joseph A

PaulQ said:


>


Thank you so much.
Aargh! I told my students such a construction "He can/could afford to buy a car." is wrong and unnatural. It should be negative.😤😥 I should tell them that I was wrong.


----------



## PaulQ

Blame it on me.


----------



## lingobingo

And the moral of the story is… don’t rely solely on Longman.


----------



## Joseph A

PaulQ said:


> Blame it on me.


😡


lingobingo said:


> And the moral of the story is… don’t rely solely on Longman.


😊


----------



## Joseph A

lingobingo said:


> And the moral of the story is… don’t rely solely on Longman.


Excuse me lingobingo and the others, could you please tell my why Longman says "usually with negatives"? Please look at my screenshot in the original post. Could  you explain it? I posted another thread about "mind". Longman says "usually with negatives and questions" and a native speaker said, "I agree with it.".
mind with affirmative sentences

What does Longman mean by "usually with negatives" for "afford"? I got your previous explanations, but does it mean "afford with negatives is usually natural and correct but sometimes unnatural with positives"?
Again, I'm sorry to bother you.


----------



## DonnyB

Joseph A said:


> Excuse me lingo bingo and the others, could you please tell my why Longman says "usually with negatives"? Please look at my screenshot in the original post. Could  you explain it? I posted another thread about "mind". Longman says "usually with negatives and questions" and a native speaker said, "I agree with it.".
> mind with affirmative sentences
> 
> What does Longman mean by "usually with negatives" for "afford"? I got your previous explanations, but does it mean "afford with negatives is usually natural and correct but sometimes unnatural with positives"?
> Again, I'm sorry to bother you.


It's simply because it's more commonly found with negatives than with positives.  If you look at the top definition for it in the entry at Lexico (Oxford Dictionaries) - *(can/could afford)* _Have enough money to pay for - _and scan down their 'More example sentences', all twenty are negatives.


----------



## Joseph A

DonnyB said:


> It's simply because it's more commonly found with negatives than with positives.  If you look at the top definition for it in the entry at Lexico (Oxford Dictionaries) - *(can/could afford)* _Have enough money to pay for - _and scan down their 'More example sentences', all twenty are negatives.


Thank you so much, DonnyB.
Indeed, your answers are always helpful and clear. I appreciate your help.


----------



## lingobingo

What Longman said is true (and I agreed with that in #2). But it would not be difficult – from the OP clip – to go away with the impression that it’s _only_ used that way, which is not true. 

And Lexico’s examples shouldn’t all be negative either (their first one isn’t, really: _‘the best that I could afford was a first-floor room’_). But their sentences are undoubtedly collected electronically/automatically, and it’s very common for both usage examples and synonyms on Lexico to be inappropriate, or at least unrepresentative. Note that nearly all the examples on that definition of *afford* are not just negative but they use the exact phrase “_couldn’t_ afford”, which I take it was the phrase the software was searching for.


----------



## Joseph A

lingobingo said:


> What Longman said is true (and I agreed with that in #2). But it would not be difficult – from the OP clip – to go away with the impression that it’s _only_ used that way, which is not true.
> 
> And Lexico’s examples shouldn’t all be negative either (their first one isn’t, really: _‘the best that I could afford was a first-floor room’_). But their sentences are undoubtedly collected electronically/automatically, and it’s very common for both usage examples and synonyms on Lexico to be inappropriate, or at least unrepresentative. Note that nearly all the examples on that definition of *afford* are not just negative but they use the exact phrase “_couldn’t_ afford”, which I take it was the phrase the software was searching for.


Thanks a lot.


----------



## Joseph A

lingobingo said:


> What Longman said is true (and I agreed with that in #2). But it would not be difficult – from the OP clip – to go away with the impression that it’s _only_ used that way, which is not true.
> 
> And Lexico’s examples shouldn’t all be negative either (their first one isn’t, really: _‘the best that I could afford was a first-floor room’_). But their sentences are undoubtedly collected electronically/automatically, and it’s very common for both usage examples and synonyms on Lexico to be inappropriate, or at least unrepresentative. Note that nearly all the examples on that definition of *afford* are not just negative but they use the exact phrase “_couldn’t_ afford”, which I take it was the phrase the software was searching for.


I'm so annoying!
Could you please answer the following question as well?
In the original, there is "only". If I drop it from the sentence as follows:
Eg. But of course, the people who worked in those factories had little money and *could afford to have * their homes in cheap, dirty areas close to their places of work.
Is it okay and natural?
Again and again, I'm sorry to bother you


----------



## tunaafi

No. The whole point is that they could afford nothing but that type of inferior houses.


----------



## Joseph A

tunaafi said:


> No. The whole point is that they could afford nothing but that type of inferior houses.


Thanks a lot.
Again I don't know why "He  can afford to run/buy a car." is correct but my original sentence isn't correct without "only". Could you please tell me why? I'm sorry to bother you.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

It's a question of meaning: "They had little money and (therefore, so, thus) could only afford to have..." = ...could not afford more than to have..." 



ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> [or "He can afford a(n) + noun.".]



Here, for instance, I think it might be clearer if "to have" were omitted.


----------



## tunaafi

Let's use shorter sentences to make life simpler.

_1. I had little money, but I could afford a small flat. 
2. I had little money, and could afford only a small flat. 
3. I had little money and could afford a small flat. 
4.. I had a little money, and (so) could afford a small flat._

1 and 2 point up a contrast.
4 shows a natural progression.

3. mixes these ideas unnaturally.


----------



## Joseph A

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> It's a question of meaning: "They had little money and (therefore, so, thus) could only afford to have..." = ...could not afford more than to have..."
> 
> 
> 
> Here, for instance, I think it might be clearer if "to have" were omitted.


Thank you so much.


tunaafi said:


> Let's use shorter sentences to make life simpler.
> 
> _1. I had little money, but I could afford a small flat.
> 2. I had little money, and could afford only a small flat.
> 3. I had little money and could afford a small flat.
> 4.. I had a little money, and (so) could afford a small flat._
> 
> 1 and 2 point up a contrast.
> 4 shows a natural progression.
> 
> 3. mixes these ideas unnaturally.


Thanks a lot.
The following was yours:
He can afford to run a car but not to pay his rent.
I know that it points up a contrast as well. 
Why is it still natural if I drop the contrast "but..." as follows?
He can afford to run a car.
If it's impossible to explain, please leave it.


----------



## lingobingo

tunaafi said:


> The whole point is that they could afford nothing but that type of inferior houses.





Joseph A said:


> Could you please answer the following question as well?
> In the original, there is "only". If I drop it from the sentence as follows:
> Eg. But of course, the people who worked in those factories had little money and *could afford to have *their homes in cheap, dirty areas close to their places of work.
> Is it okay and natural?


On the contrary – it’s laughable. What it now says is that these poor people are lucky to be able to live where and how no one in their right minds would _choose_ to live if they had any other option!


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

tunaafi said:


> No. The whole point is that they could afford nothing but that type of inferior houses.


Yes (or "nothing more/better than...").


----------



## Joseph A

lingobingo said:


> On the contrary – it’s laughable. What it now says is that these poor people are lucky to be able to live where and how no one in their right minds would _choose_ to live if they had any other option!


Thanks a lot, lingobingo.


ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> Yes (or "nothing more/better than...").


Thanks a lot, ain'ttranslationfun.
Could you please take your time to answer the following question? I promise that it'll be my last question😧 about this thread. If I change the sentence into nagative and drop "only" as follows:
But of course, the people who worked in those factories had little money and *couldn't afford to have * their homes in cheap, dirty areas close to their places of work.
Is it okay? If not, why?
I'm sorry to bother you.
P.S. I will keep my promise👍.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Hi, Joseph A, 

No sorry, that doesn't work either. It's because these people had (so) little money that those were the only places where homes were cheap enough for them to  pay for housing. 

You never need to apologize for trying!


----------



## Joseph A

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> Hi, Joseph A,
> 
> No sorry, that doesn't work either. It's because these people had (so) little money that those were the only places where homes were cheap enough for them to  pay for housing.
> 
> You never need to apologize for trying!


Thank you so much👍.


----------

