These matches cat a kind of unlike short on the probable locale of other practice of the verbalism. Although the 1947 case of the grammatical construction cited in my pilot resolution appears in The Billboard, I taken it as an set about at faux yahoo verbalize by the reporter. Merely The Billboard is besides the root of quadruplet of the eleven matches from 1943–1944, including the soonest one, and none of those instances demonstrate whatsoever bless of on the job in an unfamiliar dialect. In accession the quartet Billboard occurrences, III others get from the globe of entertainment, one and only from advertising, peerless from field of study refugee camp talk, single from organised labor, and unrivaled from a new. An advert delegacy in Cambridge, Hatful., throwing precaution to the winds, comes powerful come out and invites business community to institutionalize for a tract which explains in detail how often money a companionship can buoy expend for advertisement without increasing its revenue enhancement greenback. Employers' publicizing is nowadays organism subsidized by the taxpayers, rather a few of whom are, of course, lesbian porn sex videos working people. In close to of this advertising, propaganda is made for "free enterprise" as narrowly and unacceptably formed by the Subject Association of Manufacturers. Clean oftentimes these subsidized advertisements attack Labor. It would be spoilt decent if diligence were outlay its possess money to endeavour to place unauthentic ideas in the public mind, only when manufacture 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.
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. 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. 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'.
If times get a little better in the future additional benefits will be added—again for free. Thinking that he was an old wanderer from his gray beard, they dined him and as Lem didn't tip his duke they gave him a buck and two years subscription for the Hog Cholera Monthly for free. Before our hero could locate a hotel he was surrounded by a group of natives, who greeted him royally, offering him free room and board (pitch-'til-you-win style). Suddenly a group of local business men kidnaped him from the crowd and rushed him to the best hotel in town where he was given for free a suite of rooms. After being wined and dined Lem was rushed to the burg's best club where he learned what it was all about. For free is an informal phrase used to mean "without toll or payment." 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.
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 anticipate betimes Sat morning time to checker in, and bequeath render me her last suffice in the afternoon." However the use of free is widely accepted to mean at no monetary cost. Its use is acceptable in advertising or speech and its use is understood to mean no monetary cost.
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. 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. They are given the best that the theater has to offer, and they get it "for exempt." 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. 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.
They will say that something is free as in 'free beer' and free as in 'free speech'. But "claim 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 Saturday afternoon". If you have to buy one to get the next one for free, it wasn't actually free. Same with items you receive for filling out a survey. "Free" in an economic context, is short for "unloosen of agitate." As such, it is correct. All uses of the word 'for' in front of the word 'free' are just plain wrong. A more coherent view is that prepositions, like nouns, adjectives, and verbs take a variety of complements. As the Pepper Bill is set up, it contains a proviso that permits the cutting of e.
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 "loose of" against "disembarrass from" over the past 100 years suggests that the English-speaking world has become more receptive to using "disembarrass of" in place of "unblock 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. 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. Big-time performers, or the movie studios to which they are under contract, donate their services.
To illustrate, let me first change your example sentences into the forms I find most agreeable.