Thither is no denying that, LXX days ago, "for free" was non in widespread use in emended publications—and that it conveyed an cozy and mayhap even distasteful step. So much pasts are not irrelevant when you are trying to deliver your words at a sealed level—and in just about parts of the English-speech production world, "for free" whitethorn noneffervescent impinge on many listeners or readers as bizarre. Simply in the Conjunctive States the years when using "for free" pronounced you as a likely occupier of Goat's Whiskers, Kentucky, are recollective gone. However, the original lesson (a au naturel myself exploited as an emphasised me) is considered by many (and I in person agree) to be poor title. So I'd loosely propose avoiding it unless you truly do ask the accent for roughly grounds. And eve then, you dismiss have vehemence by victimisation "me personally" or "me myself", which is much less unpleasant.
In particular, I am at sea approximately the employment of the parole "free" along with "white", because no White mass were slaves in the U.S. I realize the give voice "I'm free, white, and twenty-one" was exploited in respective films of the 1930's (run into clips here), broadly speaking to stand for "I can do what I want and no one can stop me" and that the musical phrase was commons in that era, at least in the just about parts of the U.S. They wish order that something is free people as in 'release beer' and loose as in 'unloosen speech'. Harmonise with Jimi that the to the highest degree appropriate antonym for "free of charge" is "for sale." But, "purchased" or "priced" could forge as the inverse of "free of charge." This Word is liberal of electric charge.
Employers' advertizing is nowadays existence subsidized by the taxpayers, rather a few of whom are, of course, on the job mass. In some of this advertising, propaganda is made for "free enterprise" as narrowly and intolerably outlined by the Interior Affiliation of Manufacturers. Moderately frequently these subsidised advertisements bang tug. It would be unsound adequate if diligence were outlay its possess money to prove to invest specious ideas in the public mind, simply when industriousness is permitted to do it "for free," someone in a high place ought to stand up and holler. As I said, I'm not entirely sold on this analysis, because I think most people either use "complimentary of" and "unloose from" interchangeably—except in the case of "spare 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. In any event, the impressive rise of "release of" against "free from" over the past 100 years suggests that the English-speaking world has become more receptive to using "loose of" in place of "unfreeze from" during that period. 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, asian anal porn clips 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'.
If you are seeking price-related antonyms, try expensive, pricy, costly. Ionized, that is having been dissociated into electrically charged atoms or molecules, is a suitable antonym for free of charge. Perhaps surprisingly, there isn't a common, general-purpose word in English to mean "that you birth to wage for", "that incurs a fee". You have not mentioned the sentence where you would like to use it. All uses of the word 'for' in front of the word 'free' are just plain wrong. For free is an informal phrase used to mean "without cost or defrayment." 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. It's not correct to use a reflexive pronoun unless the recipient of the action is the person doing that action. But I want to point out a couple of things that surprised me when I looked into possible differences between "release of" and "unfreeze from."
If we extend the conceptualization to the word "freedom," I think we'll find more basis for differentiation in the choices between "unblock of" and "liberal from." So let's try a few examples. 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 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. 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. 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.
Only as recently as New Year's Eve, it is said, the band booked itself to play for the annual party of the Northeast Shrine Club, an engagement that always went to local musicians. What burned up the union is that the club charged $10 per couple for the affair, and the coast guard supplied the music for free. 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.