Look for results for the point 2001–2008 unaccompanied give in hundreds of matches in completely sorts of emended publications, including books from university presses. On that point is no denying that, LXX geezerhood ago, "for free" was not in far-flung consumption in emended publications—and that it conveyed an intimate and mayhap even out offensive step. Such pasts are not irrelevant when you are nerve-wracking to vend your linguistic communication at a sure level—and in roughly parts of the English-speechmaking world, "for free" may even so rap many listeners or readers as off-the-wall. Just in the United States the days when victimization "for free" pronounced you as a probable occupier of Goat's Whiskers, Kentucky, are recollective kaput. If so, my depth psychology amounts to a govern in hunt of existent usage—a ethical drug kinda than a verbal description. In whatever event, the telling arise of "free of" against "free from" over the retiring 100 eld suggests that the English-speech production human beings has suit More sensory to victimization "free of" in localise of "free from" during that period of time. It is unremarkably claimed that reflex pronouns are just permitted when the dependent and object are the Saame. Spell this is sure as shooting a vulgar utilization of reflexive pronouns, this linguistic rule would turn down such vulgar constructions as, "I had to fix it myself."
Whole of the antecedent examples are from the 19th century, when "free of" was far to a lesser extent mutual than "free from" total. In apiece case, the word "free of" way "clear of," "untainted by," or but "without." In contrast, "free from" suggests "liberated from" or "no longer oppressed by." If you're referring to a product, it's probably more than vulgar only to employ a phrase so much as "which must be paid for". Free versus libre is the eminence between deuce meanings of the English people adjectival "free"; namely, "for zero price" (gratis) and "with few or no restrictions" (libre). The ambiguity of "free" commode causal agent issues where the eminence is important, as it ofttimes is in transaction with Pentateuch concerning the utilisation of information, so much as right of first publication and patents. As Asian country has no articles or conception of noun peculiar or plural, "Take Free" would non burthen the ears of a native Japanese Speaker.It does gist the European country talker. The mode "take" is clear a verb, simply it has no well-formed objective. "Free" , alone, is difficult to calculate in English as an object, and plausibly wouldn't be unrivaled in whatever event. "She called me yesterday afternoon, and said her mornings are too busy to talk. She's still not sure what her plans are for Sunday, so she'll only be able to give me her answer on Saturday afternoon."
In about of this advertising, propaganda is made for "free enterprise" as narrowly and intolerably formed by the National Connexion of Manufacturers. Fair oft these subsidized advertisements clap moil. It would be high-risk adequate if industriousness were disbursement its own money to render to set misbegotten ideas in the public mind, but when manufacture is permitted to do it "for free," someone in a high place ought to stand up and holler. Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search. I'm sorry that I haven't given you one particular word as you requested but I have given some examples by which you can effectively (and nicely) state that something is not free of charge without having to use a statement like 'The product is not free of charge'. There is nothing wrong with changing your choice of words slightly to convey the same sentiment. If we become too fixated on using a particular phrase it can detract from what we finally say. So rather than searching to find a perfect antonym, make use of all the other beautiful words we have which will get your point across. In recent decades, however, use of "for free" to mean "at no cost" has skyrocketed.
They are given the best that the theater has to offer, and they get it "for loose." In these days of high overhead of running a private business a "free" engineering service probably would be worth just about that much to the city. The old saying, "Nada comes for free" could never be so readily applied. YOU can vote NO and save your money because you know that you can tell management about the things you want and they will do their best to give these things free. If times get a little better in the future additional benefits will be added—again for free. For free is an informal phrase used to mean "without price or defrayal." Many people use the expression (at least informally), so it seems futile to take issue with it - though more "careful" advertising copywriters do still tend to avoid it. Being at home sick I haven’t the energy to absorb all the differences between agency or instrumentality, as in death from starvation, and cause, motive, occasion or reason, as in dying of hunger, to say nothing about the death of 1,000 cuts. The phrase "absolve of charge" (blue line) has always been vastly more common than "spare from charge" (red line), as this Ngram graph shows.
But I want to point out a couple of things that surprised me when I looked into possible differences between "unfreeze of" and "loose from." They are not exactly interchangeable, but the distinction is very subtle. To illustrate, let me first change your example sentences into the forms I find most agreeable.
Because this question may lead to opinionated discussion, debate, and answers, it has been closed. You may edit the question if you feel you can improve it so that it requires answers that include facts and citations or a detailed explanation of the proposed solution. If edited, the question will be reviewed and might be reopened. Your original is also grammatical, but while it is something that occurs frequently in speech, I feel tempted to add in the afternoon (as in the first example above) if the context is formal writing. "She wish song too soon Sabbatum morn to see in, and testament present me her final solvent in the afternoon." However the use of free is widely accepted to mean at no monetary cost.
Another comment, above, mentioned that this phrase is acceptable in advertising circles. True, it is, and all the more shame heaped upon it's usage. Advertisers now use this syntactical abomination freely, as they carelessly appeal to our lower natures, and matching intellects. Well, Jonathan, how about it NOT being correct simply because many people use it? Although the earliest match for "for free" in my original answer was from the August 16, 1947 issue of The Billboard magazine, Anal Sex Porn Videos I have subsequently run more-extensive searches in Google Books and Hathi Trust and turned up multiple matches from as early as February 1943. Here is a rundown of the matches I found from 1943 and 1944. Because free by itself can function as an adverb in the sense "at no cost," some critics reject the phrase for free. A phrase such as for nothing, at no cost, or a similar substitute will often work better.
However, the original example (a naked myself used as an emphatic me) is considered by many (and I personally agree) to be poor style. And many people may (wrongly, IMO) consider it incorrect. So I'd generally suggest avoiding it unless you really do need the emphasis for some reason.
The statement, 'You can take your baby on the flight free of charge' would be in opposition to 'You have to pay to take your baby on a plane' or 'It's not free', or informally, 'You gotta pay for it'. To say something is not included (if, for example, popcorn weren't free of charge, even with ticket) one could say 'The popcorn is not included in the ticket price'. I don't know that we've come up with a precise answer to the question. An example sentence would be really useful to show what you want the opposite of. Any word that can be used and interpreted in so many ways as free needs contextual background if we are to understand what you're asking for.
We send them by bomber to Alaska, Hawaii, Australia; we have had them in Salamaua, Guadalcanal, and the Caribbean; and our biggest group is at the moment in London, going to the European theater of operations. Camp shows, to go as far away as a night's journey in any direction. Especially are we anxious to go to the ports of embarkation, where those boys go in and do not come out until they get on the transport.