It really confuses me and I can't seem to find the reason for that. It's amazing how it apparently never bothered anyone.

  • But some recipes do use of. May 6, 2020 at 2:24
  • Perhaps a cup of milk isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.
    – David
    May 6, 2020 at 18:14

2 Answers 2


I think it's excluded because it adds no value to the instructions. Historically recipes have either been hand-written or printed which means limited space on a page. Removing words that add no value is a logical efficiency gain (especially when writing by hand). I would guess this approach has just grown to become the standard.

  • 2
    It might also be considered redundant. If every line in a recipe used of it could become tiring to see the word used so often when it's not required for understanding in the first place. May 6, 2020 at 2:25
  • @JasonBassford I agree. I think I even had that in my answer at some point but it didn't make through the editing process 🙂 May 6, 2020 at 2:59

This is just idiomatic English and has been for many centuries. Take for example part of this recipe "[f]or to make gyngerbred" from circa 1400:

Tak & put half a quart hony in a bras panne

(Take and put half a quart honey in a brass pan)

(Via the MED and another site)

That same recipe also calls for you to "tak a pound of pouder gyngere" (take a pound of powdered ginger), so that shows that both forms were used simultaneously.

A similar thing happened with words like “dozen”. The preposition “of” was originally used, for example in “For ix dozen of breede” (For 9 dozen of bread) from 1425. Gradually, this form was replaced by the version without “of” as in “x dosen Curlewes” (10 dozen curlews, a type of bird) from 1450. (Both quotes via the MED.)


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.