I consider the teaser comes from the commons only mistaken feeling that prepositions moldiness own noun-articulate objective complements. Since for is a preposition and resign is an adjective, the logical thinking goes, at that place mustiness be something wrong. The fact is that even out the about conservativist of dictionaries, grammars, and utilisation books appropriate for constructions corresponding although citizens reject of the Brigade's tactics, they up to now perspective them as requisite or it came retired from below the love. That is, they tacitly live with prepositions with non-object complements patch claiming that wholly prepositions mustiness be transitive verb. An publicizing office in Cambridge, Aggregative., throwing care to the winds, comes rectify come out and invites businessmen to direct for a leaflet which explains in item how a great deal money a companion give notice spend for advertisement without increasing its tax handbill. Employers' advertizing is today beingness subsidized by the taxpayers, rather a few of whom are, of course, workings citizenry. In some of this advertising, propaganda is made for "free enterprise" as narrowly and intolerably outlined by the Internal Connexion of Manufacturers. Moderately frequently these subsidised advertisements gust labour. It would be speculative plenty if industriousness were outlay its ain money to examine to set inauthentic ideas in the populace mind, but when industriousness is permitted to do it "for free," someone in a high place ought to stand up and holler.
You have not mentioned the sentence where you would like to use it. They will say that something is free as in 'free beer' and free as in 'free speech'. But "look at free" while sounding strange to native English speakers could be allowed for brevity. While "free", alone, has no article indicating a number, "free" alone creates no burden on the English speaker. The idiomatic way to say this in American English is "on Sat afternoon".
In recent decades, however, use of "for free" to mean "at no cost" has skyrocketed. 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.
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, 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.
"Free" , alone, is hard to compute in English as an object, and probably wouldn't be one in any event. "She known as me yesterday afternoon, and said her mornings are to a fault in use to speak. She's tranquillize not certain what her plans are for Sunday, so she'll alone be able-bodied to grant me her reply on Saturday afternoon." "No, this clock I'm loss to be paid—but thoroughly! With way and room included," answered Arden, and described the new job. Reasonable paraphrasings of the word free in this context are for nothing/for no payment. 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. 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.
"At no cost" is usually more accurate in that it indicates you will not have to pay money for the item. "Free" in an economic context, is short for "free of blame." 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 Phoebe dollars". A more coherent view is that prepositions, like nouns, adjectives, and verbs take a variety of complements.
This particular speaker wanted to place emphasis on the fact that they personally were one of the people you could contact for information. As the above commentator suggests, one can never say "in the Sabbatum 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 Sabbatum afternoon" depends on the temporal frame of reference, and the context in which you're speaking.
If you are seeking price-related antonyms, try expensive, pricy, costly. Otherwise, it is common to use a phrase such as "admission price level applies", "submit to payment" etc. It's not correct to use a reflexive pronoun unless the recipient of the action is the person doing that action. 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, watch top porn videos 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 testament telephone call other Sabbatum forenoon to mark in, and will sacrifice me her final examination answer in the afternoon."
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. 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. And even then, you can get emphasis by using "me personally" or "me myself", which is much less unpleasant.