Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I agree that "free" could be an adverb on its own, as in "we got in free". However, I remember a series of travel books with titles such as "London for free" (a list of things to do or sights to see at no cost) that could not have been renamed "London free" without causing confusion. "London for nothing" would not have had quite the same cachet either.
I would, however, like to know if the verbivores think "for free" is too colloquial or awkward.
That's ridiculous. Just because it is said all the time doesn't make it correct - which it isn't. Like the phrase "off of" which is also said all the time and not only is it terrible grammar but it makes no sense at all. You couldn't possibly explain it to a foreigner. It is just sloppy and ill-educated.
“For free†is idiomatic, informal English. It's well-attested for more than 60 years, is perfectly comprehensible, and allowed by the rules of English grammar. I could see how one might avoid it informal situations, but to call it “sloppy†and “ill-educated†is classist, elitist, and wrong. One may find various self-appointed grammar hall monitors who harbor grudges against it, but they are expressing opinions with which even conservative usage experts such as Bryan Garner don't agree. In his Modern American Usage, he writes, “The expression is far too common to be called an error. Sometimes the syntax all but demands it.†Garner's main problem with it is that it's a cliché. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage, a more progressive usage manual, presents rather good evidence in support of “for free.â€
Hmmm, that link doesn't seem to work, Grant. Try this one.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)