If so, my analysis amounts to a rule in search of actual usage—a prescription rather than a description Saying available rather than free is considered slightly more formal, though i wouldn't worry much about usage cases. A friend claims that the phrase for free is incorrect
Should we only say at no cost instead? It may also simply mean that you expect the person to be busy rather than free, rather than the other way round What is the opposite of free as in free of charge (when we speak about prices)
I don't think there's any difference in meaning, although free of charges is much less common than free of charge Regarding your second question about context Given that english normally likes to adopt the shortest phrasing possible, the longer form free of charge can be used as a means of drawing attention to the lack of demand for. My company gives out free promotional items with the company name on it
Is this stuff called company swag or schwag It seems that both come up as common usages—google searching indicates that the I want to make a official call and ask the other person whether he is free or not at that particular time I think asking, “are you free now?” does't sound formal
Then there is free stuff, why is the same word used? If you are storing documents, however, you should choose either the mediumtext or longtext type Saying free or available rather than busy may be considered a more positive enquiry
