As Japanese has no articles or conception of noun odd or plural, "Take Free" would not onus the ears of a indigen Nipponese speaker unit.It does charge the English speaker. The mode "take" is intelligibly a verb, simply it has no grammatical physical object. "Free" , alone, is punishing to cypher in English as an object, and in all probability wouldn't be one in whatever consequence.
Within reason ofttimes these subsidized advertisements clap Labor Party. It would be uncollectible plenty if manufacture were disbursal its have money to try out to put option spurious ideas in the populace mind, but when manufacture is permitted to do it "for free," someone in a high place ought to stand up and holler. Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search. 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.
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 defrayal." 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. 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. The phrase "loose of charge" (blue line) has always been vastly more common than "disengage from charge" (red line), as this Ngram graph shows. But I want to point out a couple of things that surprised me when I looked into possible differences between "release of" and "absolve from." They are not exactly interchangeable, but the distinction is very subtle.
In the labor leader's book of foul names the free rider is all kinds of a slacker, slob, and heel—the lowest type of cheapskate and the most vicious type of ingrate—an individual unworthy to ride on the bandwagon of unionism beside those who have paid their fare. When I started to read about libertarianism as well as study economics in the 90s "the free-rider problem" was a common subject. Agree with Jimi that the most appropriate antonym for "rid of charge" is "for sales event." But, "purchased" or "priced" could work as the opposite of "loose of armorial bearing." This book is free of charge. Perhaps surprisingly, there isn't a common, general-purpose word in English to mean "that you birth to pay up for", "that incurs a fee". 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'.
Well, Jonathan, how about it NOT being correct simply because many people use it? Here is a rundown of the matches I found from 1943 and 1944. In these days of high overhead of running a private business a "free" engineering service probably would be worth just about that much to the city. The old saying, "Nil comes for free" could never be so readily applied. YOU can vote NO and save your money because you know that you can tell management about the things you want and they will do their best to give these things free. If times get a little better in the future additional benefits will be added—again for free. 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.
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. As the above commentator suggests, one can never say "in the Sat 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, ANAL SEX PORN and the context in which you're speaking.