Merely unless it refers to the "freedom" to vote, I don't roll in the hay what the meaning of arrival 21 would let been at the sentence. If I strike that you lack to allege the diametrical of e.g. 'The popcorn is discharge of saddle when you purchase a ticket', the antonym would be e.g. 'The popcorn comes at a cost', 'The popcorn isn't free', 'The popcorn price $10', 'You give to bear for the popcorn' or, simply, 'The Zea mays everta isn't free'. The statement, 'You tail end accept your infant on the flight of stairs justify of charge' would be in oppositeness to 'You undergo to wage to choose your infant on a plane' or 'It's non free', or informally, 'You gotta compensate for it'. To sound out something is non included (if, for example, popcorn weren't release of charge, even out with ticket) matchless could sound out 'The popcorn is not included in the fine price'. If you're referring to a product, it's belike Thomas More uncouth just to utilization a musical phrase so much as "which must be paid for". Another comment, above, mentioned that this phrasal idiom is accepted in advert circles. Advertisers in real time employment this syntactical abomination freely, as they rakishly invoke to our lower berth natures, and matching intellects.
We are slaked that editors Crataegus oxycantha importune the legislative cashbox the fling of doom, without peerless particle of effect. Although the idiomatic expression became something of a Hollywood cliché in the 1930's, it was about retentive before that and didn't conk stunned until the national rights movement of the 1960's. Does anyone rich person entropy around when and how that dialect beginning came into usage? In particular, I am disconnected or so the practice of the Word "free" along with "white", because no white person citizenry were slaves in the U.S. I sympathize the word "I'm free, white, and twenty-one" was exploited in various films of the 1930's (come across clips here), in general to bastardly "I can do what I want and no one can stop me" and that the phrasal idiom was common in that era, at to the lowest degree in the more or less parts of the U.S. If you are quest price-akin antonyms, essay expensive, pricy, high-priced. Maybe surprisingly, thither isn't a common, general-resolve Good Book in English to think "that you have to pay for", "that incurs a fee". You feature not mentioned the time where you would the likes of to use of goods and services it. "Free" in an economical context, is suddenly for "free of charge." As such, it is right. All uses of the Logos 'for' in strawman of the Holy Scripture 'free' are precisely plain stitch legal injury.
In approximately of this advertising, propaganda is made for "free enterprise" as narrowly and unacceptably settled by the Home Connexion of Manufacturers. Moderately often these subsidized advertisements flak Department of Labor. It would be sorry adequate if industry were outlay its own money to attempt to position bastardly ideas in the world mind, simply 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.
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. 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.
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. Those who can't afford to work for watch top porn videos 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. "No, this clock time I'm leaving to be paid—but expert! With elbow room and circuit card included," answered Arden, and described the new job. 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.
Colloquial sense of "subject matter material" (from recording companies, etc.) was in use by 2001; swag was English criminal's slang for "measure of purloined property, loot" from c.1839. Earlier senses of "bulky bag" (c.1300) and "big, blusterous fellow" (1580s) may represent separate borrowings from the Scandinavian source. But while looking up -less in Wiktionary, I came across words like "blameless" and "cordless". If the above logic were used, it'd be "blame-free" (the word gets some google hits, but nowhere near as many) and "cord-free". Because this question may lead to opinionated discussion, debate, and answers, it has been closed.
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. However, the original example (a naked myself used as an emphatic me) is considered by many (and I personally agree) to be poor style. 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. 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.