Blog

{And it still feels to me as if as "complementary breakfast" could quite logically be one that is included in the bill, "making up the complement" of the price charged. Has it always been unequivocally "complimentary" when a service is provided free of charge as a sweetener to a deal? I kind of prefer "complimentary" to relate specifically to compliments. A restaurant owner is not really paying you a compliment by not charging you extra for breakfast, he’s just doing business…|If the bill goes thru, it is said, permission might be granted to have [elected official’s] remarks extended into disks and mailed back home for free airings.One radio man said that it might also provide a way for locals with poor programing to get public service for free. On the other hand, he said, it might also prove a plague to stations tight on time who don’t want to handle Congressional effusions. For free is an informal phrase used to mean "without cost or payment."|"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." Finally, my answer is based not only on the reference I cited but also on my 28 years of experience as a copy editor (and a reader of books on usage) and on my 45+ years as a close reader of literature and nonfiction. "Freedom from want." "Freedom from fear." "Freedom from hunger." These phrases cannot be constructed using the word "of." They demonstrate of being free from an entity that is externally attached in a conceptually philosophical way; hunger besets you, fear comes upon you, "want" sinks its claws into you. If you can remove these things from your life, you are "free from" the undesirable attention (attack) of these things. If we extend the conceptualization to the word "freedom," I think we’ll find more basis for differentiation in the choices between "free of" and "free from." So let’s try a few examples.}

{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. As I said, I’m not entirely sold on this analysis, because I think most people either use "free of" and "free from" interchangeably—except in the case of "free of charge"—or arbitrarily prefer one or the other form to express the same idea, without having any finer distinctions in mind. If so, my analysis amounts to a rule in search of actual usage—a prescription rather than a description.|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. The phrase is correct; you should not use it where you are supposed to only use a formal sentence, but that doesn’t make a phrase not correct. Reasonable paraphrasings of the word free in this context are for nothing/for no payment.|"She will call early Saturday morning to check in, and will give me her final answer in the afternoon." 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. Please note that the Ngrams, although interesting, are problematic because they include the internet age, during which an enormous amount of garbled and inaccurate prose has appeared; I wish the person who provided those impressive images had used 1995 as the cut-off date. While here, Mr. Riddle ascertained that the transfer agencies of other western banks were conducted in some instances free of charge. This demonstrates that "free of" is most comfortable for me when used to indicate that something no longer is beset by an entity that had been pervasively enmeshed in its very existence, as a dictator controls every facet of a people’s lives, as the lumps in mashed potatoes influence every bite of the food. However the use of free is widely accepted to mean at no monetary cost.}

{And to-day, “free white and twenty-one,” that slang phrase, is no longer broad enough to include the voters in this country. Colloquial sense of "promotional material" (from recording companies, etc.) was in use by 2001; swag was English criminal’s slang for "quantity of stolen property, loot" from c.1839. Earlier senses of "bulky bag" (c.1300) and "big, blustering fellow" (1580s) may represent separate borrowings from the Scandinavian source.|And even then, you can get emphasis by using "me personally" or "me myself", which is much less unpleasant. It is commonly claimed that reflexive pronouns are only permitted when the subject and object are the same. While this is certainly a common usage of reflexive pronouns, this rule would reject such common constructions as, "I had to fix it myself." This was usually how it showed up in the Hollywood movies of the 1930’s.|Does anyone have information about when and how that idiom first came into use? In particular, I am confused about the use of the word "free" along with "white", because no white people were slaves in the U.S. I understand the phrase "I’m free, white, and twenty-one" was used in several films of the 1930’s (see clips here), generally to mean "I can do what I want and no one can stop me" and that the phrase was common in that era, at least in the some parts of the U.S.}

{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, "Nothing 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.|To be entitled to the privilege of voting for members of the legislative body, a person must be a free white man, 21 years of age, must have been an inhabitant of the state two years, and must have been, for six months preceding the election, possessed of a freehold of 50 acres of land, or a lot in a town. The use of "myself" and similar reflexives for emphasis is normal English usage of the word. This particular speaker wanted to place emphasis on the fact that they personally were one of the people you could contact for information. The farther "free, white, and twenty-one" got from its roots in the Southern U.S. as an encapsulation of the most-favored-citizenship status under law, the less it became about formal rights and responsibilities and the more it became simply a declaration of freedom to do as one pleased. By the time it began appearing in Hollywood movies of the 1930s, it seems to have become a nonregional catch phrase to indicate a headstrong (and sometimes reckless) belief in one’s autonomy and self-sufficiency.|Another comment, above, mentioned that this phrase is acceptable in advertising circles. 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? Big-time performers, or the movie studios to which they are under contract, donate their services.}

{Many people use the expression (at least informally), so it seems futile to take issue with it – though more "careful" advertising https://slotlounge.pro/ copywriters do still tend to avoid it.|The idiomatic https://slotlounge.pro/ way to say this in American English is "on Saturday afternoon". If (as the sentence implies) the dictator had once ruled them but now no longer did. The phrase "free of charge" (blue line) has always been vastly more common than "free 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 "free of" and "free from."|It is called swag, which some people believe stands for "Stuff We All Get" (the more PG version of the two variations). They will say that something is free as in ‘free beer’ and free as in ‘free speech’. Agree with Jimi that the most appropriate antonym for "free of charge" is "for sale." But, "purchased" or "priced" could work as the opposite of "free of charge." This book is free of charge. Perhaps surprisingly, there isn’t a common, general-purpose word in English to mean "that you have to pay for", "that https://slotlounge.pro/ incurs a fee". You have not mentioned the sentence where you would like to use it.}

{Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers. The language in this act regarding "free white male inhabitants of said town" and "of Scott county" was the same in section 4 of the 1847 act; the amended language of 1854 simply added the requirement about paying a poll tax. In fact, the wording "free white male inhabitants over the age of twenty one years" appears multiple times in the 1847 Kentucky statutes.|Search results for the period 2001–2008 alone yield hundreds of matches in all sorts of edited publications, including books from university presses. There is no denying that, seventy years ago, "for free" was not in widespread use in edited publications—and that it conveyed an informal and perhaps even unsavory tone. Such pasts are not irrelevant when you are trying to pitch your language at a certain level—and in some parts of the English-speaking world, "for free" may still strike many listeners or readers as outlandish. But in the United States the days when using "for free" marked you as a probable resident of Goat’s Whiskers, Kentucky, are long gone.|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. "Free" in an economic context, is short for "free of charge." As such, it is correct. All uses of the word ‘for’ in front of the word ‘free’ are just plain wrong. The use of a commodity, such as ‘five dollars’, can be correctly phrased, "for five dollars". As the Pepper Bill is set up, it contains a proviso that permits the cutting of e.}

{In some of this advertising, propaganda is made for "free enterprise" as narrowly and unacceptably defined by the National Association of Manufacturers. It would be bad enough if industry were spending its own money to try to put spurious ideas in the public mind, but when industry is permitted to do it "for free,” someone in a high place ought to stand up and holler. In recent decades, however, use of "for free" to mean "at no cost" has skyrocketed.|Clearly the word "for" can’t be omitted from those paraphrasings. Thus many people will say that for free equates to for for free, so they feel it’s ungrammatical. It’s not correct to use a reflexive pronoun unless the recipient of the action is the person doing that action. There was a time, sadly, when not being free, white, and 21 was a significant legal disability. We are satisfied that editors may importune the legislature till the crack of doom, without one particle of effect. Although the phrase became something of a Hollywood cliché in the 1930’s, it was around long before that and didn’t die out until the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.|If I assume that you want to say the opposite of e.g. ‘The popcorn is free of charge when you purchase a ticket’, the opposite would be e.g. ‘The popcorn comes at a cost’, ‘The popcorn isn’t free’, ‘The popcorn cost $10’, ‘You have to pay for the popcorn’ or, simply, ‘The popcorn isn’t free’. 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’.}

{The next great change which is proposed [for the Virginia state constitution], is to have universal suffrage. Under the present system, Free-holders, House-keepers and Lease-holders are voters, whose property may be as little as $25 or a house 12 feet square. Now we confidently assert that any man who is incapable of obtaining a vote under these conditions, is unworthy of it. If he does not possess that much mental, moral and physical energy, his vote would degrade the candidate, the office, and , if possible, himself.|In any event, the impressive rise of "free of" against "free from" over the past 100 years suggests that the English-speaking world has become more receptive to using "free of" in place of "free from" during that period. I believe the puzzle comes from the common but mistaken belief that prepositions must have noun-phrase object complements. Since for is a preposition and free is an adjective, the reasoning goes, there must be something wrong.|"In ~ afternoon" suggests that the afternoon is a temporal space in-and-of-itself, wherein anything that happens will happen amongst many other events. In other words, the temporal context for this usage would be if one were speaking of a single day — whether past, present, or future — and of a single afternoon, during which many things might happen. The choice of prepositions depends upon the temporal context in which you’re speaking. "On ~ afternoon" implies that the afternoon is a single point in time; thus, that temporal context would take the entire afternoon as one of several different afternoons, or in other words, one would use "on" when speaking within the context of an entire week. As the above commentator suggests, one can never say "in the Saturday afternoon" — but i think you already know that. In any event, from the above two examples i think it’s clear that the choice of "in the afternoon" versus "on Saturday afternoon" depends on the temporal frame of reference, and the context in which you’re speaking.}

{Those who can’t afford to work for free are paid small salaries by USO-Camp Shows, Inc., which also meets personal expenses of the entertainers, from a share of the National War Fund collected annually by voluntary home-front subscriptions to support various wartime relief and welfare activities. Transportation, quarters and rations for the touring troupes are provided by the Army and Navy. I think the basis for "complimentary drink" is the simple fact that it comes with the "compliments of the house"; the compliment presumably being that one is a valued customer and therefore deserves special treatment in the form of a free drink. There were still black slaves in some states in the mid 1800s, so obviously being free and white was a meaningful part of "I can do what I want and no one can stop me". But unless it refers to the "freedom" to vote, I don’t know what the significance of reaching 21 would www.nsw.gov.au have been at the time.|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. All www.nsw.gov.au of the preceding examples are from the nineteenth century, when "free of" was far less common than "free from" overall.|These matches cast a rather different light on the probable locus of early use of the expression. Although the 1947 instance of the expression cited in my original answer appears in The Billboard, I interpreted it as an attempt at faux hick talk by the reporter. But The Billboard is also the source of four of the eleven matches from 1943–1944, including the earliest one, and none of those instances show any sign of working in an unfamiliar dialect. In addition the four Billboard occurrences, three others come from the world of entertainment, one from advertising, one from military camp talk, one from organized labor, and one from a novel. Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy www.nsw.gov.au to search.}

{Its use is acceptable in advertising or speech and its use is understood to mean no monetary cost. I would only change the use in a situation where clarity and accuracy were truly important, like in a contract. Additionally, it sounds ridiculous and makes you seem uneducated, unless you’re talking to another uneducated person, in which case, they talk that way too, so they won’t notice or couldn’t care that your English is compromised. "No, this time I’m going to be paid—but good! With room and board included," answered Arden, and described the new job. Although the earliest match for "for free" in my original answer was from the August 16, 1947 issue of The Billboard magazine, I have subsequently run more-extensive searches in Google Books and Hathi Trust and turned up multiple matches from as early as February 1943.|Gratis versus libre is the distinction between two meanings of the English adjective "free"; namely, "for zero price" (gratis) and "with few or no restrictions" (libre). The ambiguity of "free" can cause issues where the distinction is important, as it often is in dealing with laws concerning the use of information, such as copyright and patents. If you are seeking price-related antonyms, try expensive, pricy, costly. If you’re referring to a product, it’s probably more common simply to use a phrase such as "which must be paid for". Otherwise, it is common to use a phrase such as "admission charge applies", "subject to payment" etc. 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.|He is unworthy the title of citizen, and should not participate in the government. Suppose, for an instance, that we gave every man who was free, white and 21 years of age, a right to vote–what would be the result? The suffrages of the idle, indolent and ignorant would be as valuable, and in many cases counteract those of industrious, active, and learned. In South Carolina, as in other American States, the legislative power is vested in a general assembly, consisting of a senate and a house of representatives. To be qualified for this office, a person must be a free white man, 21 years of age; must have been an inhabitant of the state three years, and, if he reside in the district for which he is chosen, he must have a freehold clear of debt to the amount of 150 sterling.}