Swedish: att after tyckte

[James_Skipp]

I got this sentence from a book:

Han minns att han tyckte hon var vansinnigt tjusig - there is no att after tyckte, where I would have placed it.

I have seen other sentences where the att seems necessary, like Han tyckte att hon var galen etc.

​

Is the att after tyckte strictly necessary? Why is it missing from first sentence?

 

[Sepia]

You may leave it out - you don't have to, if you are not sure. However, it is a stylistic thing that seems to work the same way in in several Germanic languages. Even English.

I remember that he thought she was cute. - You think you could say: I remember that he thought that she was cute. But it seems a bit redundant with a second marker of the second relative relative clause - which technically is the direct object of the first relative clause.
I know it may be new to you to break deal with grammar like this, but it is a method of analysis that can be applied to all languages I have seen till now:

Han minns xxx

xxx is the position of the direct object.

So the direct object is in fact the relative clause.
(att han tyckte hon var vansinnigt tjusig)

However
han tyckte xxx

may also have a direct object at the position xxx ... and it does
( (att) hon var vansinnigt tjusig)

So we have three levels here.

The first marker seems, as you say, necessary. Let's say, it is. I am not sure if it is always necessary, but it doesn't do any harm. It is a stylistic thing. But the second one sounds redundant.

 

[James_Skipp]

Thanks. I think I get it. Sort of