It is no consequence to what I think.

[kttlt]

From House of the Dragon, s1e3, [44:57] (I can't find a YouTube clip to link):

-Do you not think my decision correct?
-It is no consequence to what I think, as I'm often reminded.

What does the bolded part mean? I think the intended meaning is "what I think is of no consequence", but that's not what it says, is it? Is this some way of saying "there is no consequence to what I think"?

 

[jutfrank]

The way the original sentence is phrased doesn't sound right to me, either.

I think the intended meaning is "what I think is of no consequence"

Yes, I'm sure that's right. Using dummy 'it', the thought could also be expressed as:

It is of no consequence what I think.

Is this some way of saying "there is no consequence to what I think"?

Yes, I think so but is that not effectively the same thing?

As I think you know, the word 'to' can express some kind of relation. The relation in this case is relevance. She's saying her opinion is irrelevant. Perhaps this is where the writer got the word 'to' from.

 

[kttlt]

Yes, I think so but is that not effectively the same thing?

As I think you know, the word 'to' can express some kind of relation. The relation in this case is relevance. She's saying her opinion is irrelevant. Perhaps this is where the writer got the word 'to' from.

I don't quite understand what you're saying. With "there's no consequence to what I think" the meaning is clear, but "it is no consequence to what I think" almost sounds as though she's saying "what I think is of no consequence to what I think" (considering she's essentially answering a "what do you think" question), which, of course, doesn't make sense.

I guess, what I'm confused by is what does "it" refer to in that sentence.

It is of no consequence what I think.

This I understand, and it's what I would expect her answer to be.

 

[jutfrank]

With "there's no consequence to what I think" the meaning is clear, but "it is no consequence to what I think" almost sounds as though she's saying "what I think is of no consequence to what I think" (considering she's essentially answering a "what do you think" question), which, of course, doesn't make sense.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I agree. It doesn't make good sense and it feels ungrammatical.

The best explanation I have for this is that it's simply wrong.

 

[SoothingDave]

In the fantasy world of George RR Martin, there are often subtle differences from our world.

They say "ser" instead of "sir." They celebrate "name days" instead of birthdays.

This could be a subtle difference in expression on purpose. Or it could be a mistake.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, it could well have been written awkwardly like that just to give an archaic feel.