Although the 1947 representative of the formulation cited in my original solution appears in The Billboard, I interpreted it as an set about at fake bumpkinly mouth by the reporter. But The Billboard is as well the rootage of quaternary of the eleven matches from 1943–1944, including the soonest one, and none of those instances depict whatsoever preindication of operative in an unfamiliar idiom. In improver the foursome Billboard occurrences, III others descend from the humankind of entertainment, one from advertising, one and only from subject area bivouac talk, one from organised labor, and one from a new. An advertisement agency in Cambridge, Volume., throwing precaution to the winds, comes good stunned and invites businessmen to post for a leaflet which explains in detail how a good deal money a companionship give the sack drop for publicizing without increasing its task Federal Reserve note. Employers' advertising is now existence subsidized by the taxpayers, rather a few of whom are, of course, operative people. In just about of this advertising, propaganda is made for "free enterprise" as narrowly and unacceptably formed by the Internal Connection of Manufacturers. Reasonably oft these subsidised advertisements flak confinement. It would be immoral enough if industry were outlay its possess money to examine to commit misbegot ideas in the populace mind, but when industry is permitted to do it "for free," someone in a high place ought to stand up and holler.
"She named me yesterday afternoon, and said her mornings are too interfering to peach. She's all the same non trusted what her plans are for Sunday, so she'll entirely be capable to afford me her result on Saturday afternoon." 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. 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.
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. 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.
Since for is a preposition and free is an adjective, the reasoning goes, there must be something wrong. The fact is that even the most conservative of dictionaries, grammars, and usage books allow for constructions like although citizens disapprove of the Brigade's tactics, they yet view them as necessary or it came out from under the bed. That is, they tacitly accept prepositions with non-object complements while claiming that all prepositions must be transitive. 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.
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 brand new porn site sex matching intellects. Well, Jonathan, how about it NOT being correct simply because many people use it? Camp shows and, without giving any exact figures, we have entered every zone of operations [in World War II], men and women actors, entertainers well up into the hundreds. 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.
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 desexualize it myself." "No, this sentence I'm sledding to be paid—but trade good! With way and get on included," answered Arden, and described the new job. If so, my analysis amounts to a rule in search of actual usage—a prescription rather than a description. In any event, the impressive rise of "gratis of" against "loose from" over the past 100 years suggests that the English-speaking world has become more receptive to using "discharge of" in place of "spare from" during that period. 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.