Learn Hardcore Swedish: Trots rean tycker hon att den bruna kjolen är för ful för hennes smak. - Despite the sale she thinks the brown skirt is too ugly for her taste.

Saying just trots rea (without article or definite ending) is not idiomatic; you normally need either en rea or rean, and here rean fits best because it refers to a particular, known sale that’s going on.

Why is the verb tycker used here, and how is it different from tycker om and tror?

tycker = to think in the sense of having an opinion
- Hon tycker att kjolen är ful. – She thinks the skirt is ugly. (her subjective judgment)
tycker om = to like
- Hon tycker om kjolen. – She likes the skirt.
tror = to think / believe in the sense of believing something is true (a factual belief)
- Hon tror att affären stänger klockan sju. – She thinks/believes the shop closes at seven.

In your sentence, it’s about her opinion of the skirt’s appearance, so Swedish uses tycker (not tycker om and not tror).

Why do we need att after tycker in tycker hon att den bruna kjolen är…?

att here is a subordinating conjunction meaning that. It introduces the clause that functions as the object of tycker:

Hon tycker att den bruna kjolen är för ful…
= She thinks *that the brown skirt is too ugly…*

So the structure is:

Main clause: Hon tycker
Subordinate clause: att den bruna kjolen är för ful för hennes smak

In more informal spoken Swedish, att can sometimes be dropped with verbs like tycka, especially when the subordinate clause is short (e.g. Jag tycker han är snäll). However, including att is neutral and preferred in standard written language, as in your sentence.

Why does the verb come right after Trots rean? Could I say Hon tycker trots rean att… instead?

Swedish main clauses follow the V2 rule: the finite verb is almost always in second position.

In your sentence:

Trots rean – fronted adverbial (position 1)
tycker – finite verb (position 2)
hon – subject
rest of the clause …

So: Trots rean tycker hon att …

You can also say:

Hon tycker trots rean att den bruna kjolen är …

That’s grammatical too. The difference is mainly one of emphasis:

Trots rean tycker hon … – emphasizes the contrast “despite the sale”.
Hon tycker trots rean … – keeps hon tycker as the starting point and inserts the contrast later.

Both are correct; the original version highlights the “despite the sale” part more strongly.

Why is it den bruna kjolen and not den brun kjol or just brun kjol?

Three important points are involved: definiteness, word order, and adjective agreement.

Definite vs indefinite

en brun kjol – a brown skirt (indefinite)
den bruna kjolen – the brown skirt (definite, a specific skirt)

In your sentence she is talking about a specific brown skirt (presumably one she sees in the shop), so Swedish uses the definite form: den bruna kjolen.

Word order with adjectives

In Swedish, the normal order is:

den/det/de + adjective + noun

So we say:

den bruna kjolen – the brown skirt
not den brun kjol.

“Double definiteness”

With an adjective + definite noun, Swedish marks definiteness twice:

den (definite article)
bruna (definite form of the adjective)
kjol‑en (definite ending on the noun)

Pattern:

en brun kjol – a brown skirt
den bruna kjolen – the brown skirt

So den brun kjol and den brun kjolen are ungrammatical; den bruna kjolen is the correct definite form with an adjective.

Why does the adjective end in ‑a in bruna when kjol is singular?

Adjectives in Swedish change form depending on gender, number, and definiteness. For brun:

Common gender, indefinite singular: en brun kjol – a brown skirt
Neuter, indefinite singular: ett brunt hus – a brown house
Plural (any gender), indefinite: bruna kjolar – brown skirts

With definite nouns (and with all plurals), the adjective usually takes ‑a:

den bruna kjolen – the brown skirt
det bruna huset – the brown house
de bruna kjolarna – the brown skirts

So even though kjol is singular, it is definite, and therefore the adjective must be bruna, not brun: den bruna kjolen.

What exactly does för ful mean, and how is it different from mycket ful or väldigt ful?

för before an adjective means too (in the sense of “excessively, more than is acceptable or desirable”):

för ful – too ugly (ugly beyond what is acceptable)

By contrast:

mycket ful – very ugly (strong degree, but not necessarily “too much”)
väldigt ful – very / really ugly

So:

för ful implies there is a problem or limit: it’s so ugly that she won’t buy it / it doesn’t work for her.
mycket/väldigt ful just expresses high degree without automatically saying it’s “too much for X purpose”.

Your sentence says she thinks the skirt is too ugly for her taste, not just very ugly in general.

What does the phrase för hennes smak express, and is för here the same för as in för ful?

Yes, it’s the same word för, but used in a slightly different way.

In för ful, för is a degree adverb meaning too.
In för hennes smak, för is more like a preposition meaning for / according to / in relation to.

The whole expression för hennes smak means roughly:

for her taste
according to her personal taste
as far as her taste is concerned

The pattern is common:

för min smak – for my taste
för vår smak – for our taste

Note that there is also i hennes smak (to her taste), which is typically used in positive contexts:

Det är i hennes smak. – That’s to her taste / That’s the kind of thing she likes.

But with too + adjective, Swedish very often uses för X smak:

för ful för hennes smak – too ugly for her taste

Why is it hennes smak and not sin smak?

Swedish has special reflexive possessives:

sin / sitt / sina – “his/her/their own” referring back to the subject of the same clause
hans / hennes / deras – normal third‑person possessives (“his / her / their”) that do not necessarily refer to the subject

In your sentence:

Main clause subject: hon
Subordinate clause subject: den bruna kjolen

The phrase för hennes smak is inside the subordinate clause:
att den bruna kjolen är för ful för hennes smak

The subject of that clause is den bruna kjolen (the skirt). If you wrote för sin smak, sin would grammatically refer to den bruna kjolen, which would mean “for the skirt’s own taste”, which is nonsense.

Therefore you must use hennes to refer back to hon across the clause boundary:

Hon tycker att den bruna kjolen är för ful för hennes smak.
– She thinks the brown skirt is too ugly for her taste.

So: use sin/sitt/sina only when the possessor is the subject of that same clause; otherwise, use hennes (or hans/deras as appropriate).

Why is it den bruna kjolen and not det bruna kjolen? How do I know when to use den vs det?

den and det agree with the grammatical gender of the noun:

den – used with common gender nouns (en‑words)
det – used with neuter nouns (ett‑words)

kjol is an en‑word:

en kjol – a skirt
kjolen – the skirt
den bruna kjolen – the brown skirt

So you must use den, not det.

Some contrasts:

en stol – den bruna stolen – the brown chair (common gender)
ett hus – det bruna huset – the brown house (neuter)

You generally have to learn the gender (en or ett) with each noun. Once you know that kjol is en kjol, you know to use den in the definite phrase: den bruna kjolen.