"Sue mentions that Eve is not here."
Translation:Zsuzsa említi, hogy Éva nincs itt.
Sue?!? I've seen "Suzanna" in this course before, but geez, if they're going to make us translate names - which they shouldn't - they could at least be consistent about it!
Lehet itt "azt", de nem szükséges.
"Azt" is optional here. It would be the last word in the first clause, immediately followed by the relative clause(?). In this situation it can frequently be omitted.
"Zsuzsa nem említi (azt), hogy Éva nincs itt."
Since this is Hungarian, the words can sometimes be reshuffled. If, for some reason, "azt" were in another position (probably in a more emphasized position), then it would not be optional. For example:
"Zsuzsa azt említi, hogy Éva nincs itt."
This sentence would answer the question: "What does Zsuzsa mention?" Or: "What is it that Zsuzsa mentions?"
Ismét köszönöm szépen! The Explanation on hungarianreference gives the impression that azt was always mandatory.
I have another question: I`ve seen a structure without the "hogy" in a song. Is this "poetic license" or old-fashioned? (Azt gondoltam eső esik / Pedig a szemem könnyezik)
It is definitely not mandatory, but this is a two-part structure and both parts are more often necessary than in English. I am not prepared to establish a rule as to when it is necessary and when it is not. It needs some thinking about.
Now, on "hogy", yes, that can also be omitted sometimes, and it is not just poetic license. Not even old fashioned. It is very much done in everyday speech.
The problem is, there are sentences where you can omit it, and in others you can not. And sometimes it means a more or less different thing with or without "azt" and/or "hogy". And, again, I don't know if I can establish a rule or guideline. Maybe someone else can. Or I will try to think up something and get back to this topic.