Order (FOR) a cup of coffee

Richard ordered a cup of coffee. Why is this correct language : (I ordered) -- (a cup of coffee) There is firstly an action done, that Richard ordered. What was the order? It was for a cup of coffee. But you skip “for a”. You directly fuse “ordered” with “a cup of coffee”. “Richard ordered” is the action. In the fusing, the action is directly made affiliationally synonymous or one, with the item coffee-cup. This is allowed because ‘doing an action upon something’ is a fundamental trait of our real world. So there is no need for a connector in between. ‘A cup of coffee’ directly comes under the hood of ‘ordered’ since such an association is commonplace as and moreover also the only possibility of the general broader phenomenon of (order for) + (some food item). This is again a principle of commonsense manifested in language-usage. In language actions are immediately followed by the entity they act upon since actions in real life are, as a worldly phenomenon, directly associated with or are on some entity. We say “cut the cake” and not “cut on the cake”.