# What do you think what Santa Claus does on normal days?



## phuctinh25

I want to make a question to ask my friend. I want to ask his thought about what Santa Claus does on normal days. I use this question:
"What do you think what Santa Claus does on normal days?"

But I feel it complicated and not natural. Can you help me to make it natural?
Thank you and happy new year


----------



## heypresto

It would sound more natural if you removed the second 'what': "What do you think Santa Claus does on normal days?"

You could also ask '"What do you think Santa Claus does during the rest of the year?", or "What do you think Santa Claus does on his days off?"


----------



## Glenfarclas

heypresto said:


> It would sound more natural if you removed the second 'what': "What do you think Santa Claus does on normal days?"



Yes; in fact, using two "what"s in that question is simply incorrect.


----------



## velisarius

phuctinh25 said:


> "What do you think what Santa Claus does on normal days?"



Heypresto's advice is very good, but your question would be acceptable if you changed the second what to "that". Do other native speakers agree?


----------



## Glenfarclas

velisarius said:


> Heypresto's advice is very good, but your question would be acceptable if you changed the second what to "that". Do other native speakers agree?



I would find a "that" there to be marginally acceptable, but probably formally incorrect.


----------



## velisarius

Glenfarclas said:


> I would find a "that" there to be marginally acceptable, but probably formally incorrect.


 Thanks. I thought so too.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Glenfarclas said:


> I would find a "that" there to be marginally acceptable, but probably formally incorrect.



Sorry for interrupting, but this non-native speaker doesn't find that even marginally acceptable.


*What* do you think *Santa does on normal days*? (= what Santa does/what does Santa do...)

*What* do you think *that Santa does on normal days*? (what that Santa does/what does that Santa does...)
You know, "do you think" is kind of parenthetical in the above sentences and isca sperate clause.

But

*Do you think* *that Santa works on Sundays*?
Do you think = main clause in which "think" is a transitive verb.

that Santa works on Sundays = dependent/subordinate (noun) clause, which is the object of the verb "think".

*What* do you think *that Santa does on normal days*? = what's that thing that you think and which Santa does on normal days.   (If the sentence means anything)



This non-native speaker may, of course, be wrong, as usual.


----------



## velisarius

I see it as ellipsis: _What do you think (it is) that Santa does on normal days?
_
I can imagine this being said by a native speaker, but I'm not recommending it: _What do you think that Santa does on normal days?_


----------



## Englishmypassion

*What do you think* it is *my profession is? *
That's why I don't see that as a an ellipsis but as a parenthetical insertion, though not set off with punctuation marks.

I edited my post #7 above to add the meaning of the sentence with "that".


----------



## VicNicSor

While this one is correct:
_What do you think *it is that *Santa does on normal days?
_
... yours doesn't work, EMP:
_What do you think *it is that *my profession is? 
_


----------



## velisarius

What (do you think) Santa Claus does? -- "do you think" is not parenthetical, because "What Santa Claus does?" is incorrect.


----------



## VicNicSor

Btw, inserting "about" would make the OP correct:
What do you think *about *what Santa Claus does on normal days?


----------



## Englishmypassion

VicNicSor said:


> While this one is correct:
> _What do you think *it is that *Santa does on normal days?
> _
> ... yours doesn't work, EMP:
> _What do you think *it is that *my profession is?
> _



I did mean that the sentence didn't work -- I used the sentence as an example to show that "it is" was not elided there.


----------



## Englishmypassion

velisarius said:


> What (do you think) Santa Claus does? -- "do you think" is not parenthetical, because "What Santa Claus does?" is incorrect.



You're right that's why I said "*kind of *parenthetical" in my post #7. What I meant was that the clause following "do you think" was not the object of "think" unlike in "Do you think Santa works on Sundays?", nor was it a "that" clause, so "that" was not required/wrong there.


----------



## velisarius

_What is it that Santa does on normal days?
What do you think it is that Santa does on normal days?
What do you think (it is) that Santa does on normal days?_


----------



## VicNicSor

Englishmypassion said:


> I did mean that the sentence didn't work -- I used the sentence as an example to show that "it is" was not elided there.


But we're talking about "that". With "that", this sentence is correct: "_What do you think *it is that *Santa does on normal days?_" Whereas your sentence with "that" is still incorrect: "_What do you think *it is that *my profession is?_"



Englishmypassion said:


> *Do you think* *that Santa works on Sundays*?
> Do you think = main clause in which "think" is a transitive verb.
> 
> that Santa works on Sundays = dependent/subordinate (noun) clause, which is the object of the verb "think".
> 
> *What* do you think *that Santa does on normal days*? = what's that thing that you think and which Santa does on normal days.  (If the sentence means anything)


Note that the "that" in the former sentence is a conjunction, while in the latter it's a relative pronoun. But I agree, I personaly would not say it without "it is" either.


----------



## Englishmypassion

What I mean is that if we consider "it is" to be elided, which justifies "that", "it is" or something like that should be elided in every construction in which "do you think" is used in a kind of parenthetical way but it doesn't. But the parenthetical insertion theory works if you ignore the interrogative vs affirmative structure (understanding that there can't normally be two interrogative clauses together in a sentence). 

Why do you think he lies? 
Why do you think *it is that* he lies? /


Why do you think he lies?
Why he lies? (because there can't be normally two interrogative clauses together) = Why does he lie? 

No?


----------



## Englishmypassion

What I mean is that if we consider "it is" to be elided, which justifies "that", "it is" or something like that should be elided in every construction in which "do you think" is used in a kind of parenthetical way, but it is probably not. But the parenthetical insertion theory works if you ignore the interrogative vs affirmative structure (understanding that there can't normally be two interrogative clauses together in a sentence).

Why do you think he lies?
Why do you think *it is that* he lies? /


Why do you think he lies?
Why he lies? (because there can't be normally two interrogative clauses together) = Why does he lie? 

No?


----------



## velisarius

Englishmypassion said:


> Why do you think *it is that* he lies?



It sounds okay to me. 

Q732 Mr Tyrie: *Why do you think it is that* Lord Falconer went out of his way not just to say he disagreed a little bit but to take the diametrically opposite view?
Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill


----------



## Englishmypassion

Vic, you seem to have lost me there. Veli says that "it is" is elided there, which justifies "that". I'm trying to show that "it is" is not really elided there because if it were, it must be elided in that "profession" example too, which is very similar in construction to the original sentence. But "it is" and "that" probably don't belong there. 
Am I clearer now?


----------



## Englishmypassion

Ok, Veli,  let me try my other guns.

Where do you think he lives?
Where do you think it is that he lives?  (I think that doesn't work now.)

Where he lives? = Where does he live?


----------



## VicNicSor

Englishmypassion said:


> Vic, you seem to have lost me there. Veli says that "it is" is elided there, which justifies "that". I'm trying to show that "it is" is not really elided there because if it were, it must be elided in that "profession" example too, which is very similar in construction to the original sentence. But "it is" and "that" probably don't belong there.
> Am I clearer now?


That's exactly what I'm trying to say -- the "profession" example is very different from the OP.


----------



## Englishmypassion

VicNicSor said:


> That's exactly what I'm trying to say -- the "profession" example is very different from the OP.




No, grammatically they both begin with the same "what", which takes a noun/noun clause as a complement/an answer. 
Anyway, I'm more interested in no ellipsis versus the elision of " it is", which justifies "that", and the parenthetical-like role or not of "do you think" and believe that whatever it is, it should apply to all such sentences whether they begin with "what" or "where" or any other wh-word.


----------



## VicNicSor

Englishmypassion said:


> No, grammatically they both begin with the same "what", which takes a noun/noun clause as a complement/an answer.



Just one question: do you think this is a correct sentence?
_What do you think* it is that* my profession is? 
_
If you don't find it acceptable, then you must admit it differs from "_What do you think *it is that *Santa does on normal days?_".


----------



## phuctinh25

Thank you everybody. But I'm confused very much


----------



## Glenfarclas

phuctinh25 said:


> Thank you everybody. But I'm confused very much



Use this sentence:

What do you think Santa Claus does on normal days? ​


----------



## siares

Englishmypassion said:


> No, grammatically they both begin with the same "what", which takes a noun/noun clause as a complement/an answer.


I think the 'what' is an object of 'does' in OP; but in your example, 'is' doesn't have any object. Or could you give examples of the complement - the answer?
What does your profession entail?
What _is_ it that your profession entails, explain!
What do _I_ think it is that your profession entails? I haven't the foggiest.

What is your profession?
What is it that your profession is?
What do I think it is your profession is? 

For the same reason (no object), I see 'where' and 'why' examples as unparallel - but interesting!


----------



## Oddmania

I don't see what's wrong with "_that_". "Think" is one of those verbs that can be followed by _that_, although it's often left out.

_What do you think (that) I'm going to do?
What do you think (that) Santa does... ?
What do you suggest (that) I do?
What did you say (that) your name was?_​


----------



## VicNicSor

Oddmania said:


> I don't see what's wrong with "_that_". "Think" is one of those verbs that can be followed by _that_, although it's often left out.
> 
> _What do you think (that) I'm going to do?
> What do you think (that) Santa does... ?
> What do you suggest (that) I do?
> What did you say (that) your name was?_​


Personally to me, what is not OK in these sentences is that it is usually "that" (whether it is a conjunction or a relative pronoun) that is omitted rather than the antecedent in the sentence.


----------



## Oddmania

I don't follow you, Vic. I didn't suggest to omit anything but "_that_", as a conjunction.

By contrast, when a verb or an adjective cannot be followed by a bare clause, but only by a _that_-clause, "_that_" is not optional:

_What does he demand *that *Theseus do?
What does he insist *that *she do?
What is important *that *you should remember from today's reading?
_​This is how I see it, if nothing else. I'm not a grammarian, though, and I'm willing to be proven wrong.


----------



## Englishmypassion

siares said:


> I think the 'what' is an object of 'does' in OP; but in your example, 'is' doesn't have any object. Or could you give examples of the complement - the answer?
> What does your profession entail?
> What _is_ it that your profession entails, explain!
> What do _I_ think it is that your profession entails? I haven't the foggiest.
> 
> What is your profession?
> What is it that your profession is?
> What do I think it is your profession is?
> 
> For the same reason (no object), I see 'where' and 'why' examples as unparallel - but interesting!





I wouldn't have liked to talk about the role/function of "what" here as I think the question word doesn't matter, but since you have asked, here's what I mean.

What does Santa do? Ans.* X* (*X* = noun/noun phrase/pronoun/noun clause)
What is Santa's favourite *month *(noun)? Ans. December/*X*
What is *it* (pronoun/*x*) that Santa does/likes? Ans. Santa does/likes  *x/rehearsal/candies*.
What is *x/it* that Santa does/likes? = What is *x**/it* that is the same thing as* x/rehearsal/candies. *

You see"what" enquires about a noun/noun phrase/pronoun/noun clause/*x*. Now, whether it enquires about *x* directly or by asking "What is *y* that is *x*?" (where *y* is also a noun/pronoun), the point is that it enquires about a noun/pronoun. I hope you get what I mean.
Thanks.


----------



## VicNicSor

Oddmania said:


> I don't follow you, Vic. I didn't suggest to omit anything but "_that_", as a conjunction.



I meant this:


> The word that can be omitted in standard English where it introduces a subordinate clause, as in *she said (that) she was satisfied *. It can also be dropped in a relative clause where the subject of the subordinate clause is not the same as the subject of the main clause, as in *the book (that) I've just written* ('the book' and 'I' are two different subjects).


In the former, "that" is a conjunction, in the latter -- a pronoun. The antecedent is "book". You can leave out "that", but not "book".

But in all your examples in #28, the antecedents ("it") are all left out: "it is that" --> "that". In this case the "that: is a pronoun, not conjunction...


----------



## Hermione Golightly

I think some of these deviations are stylistic for emphasis to really make a huge point of the question in case there are some slow thinkers. Others are plain wrong and I can't think who really says them deliberately. Live interviews don't count because people often come out with odd phrasing.

Anyway, the answer is is that that he goes into santapause.


----------



## siares

Englishmypassion said:


> I wouldn't have liked to talk about the role/function of "what" here as I think the question word doesn't matter, but since you have asked, here's what I mean.


Thank you very much for explanation!
I worry I muddled the issue because I completely left out I think'. I think it plays a part there - of muddling the issue.

You've convinced me, I thought of another angle completely.

_What is it that Santa does when he is off?
(It is shopping) that Santa does when he is off.
_
These look like the same structure as discussed in another thread, and, according to the post I copy below post, *that* in an answer to a question refers to* it. 
*
From that - although that post doesn't deal with questions - I am guessing you and Vik would be right, and it shouldn't be possible to drop '*it* is' from the question - because than the *that* has no referent! 
It is the 'what do you think' that sort of attaches itself to the 'that' and makes it seems like it still belongs in the sentence in the absence of 'it'.


Forero said:


> I might say "Tell me who invented the non-explosive match" and you might reply "János Irinyi[, who was a Hungarian chemist]" or, for a whole sentence, "It was János Irinyi[, who was a Hungarian chemist,] that invented the non-explosive match in 1836."





Forero said:


> The natural subordinator in a cleft structure is "that" because the clause, in effect, modifies "it", and "it" and "that" together play the role of a question word like "how" or "who".


_Tell me what Santa does when he's off. 
or
What do you think *it* is *that* Santa does when he's off?
I think it is shopping that Santa does when he's off._


VicNicSor said:


> With "that", this sentence is correct: "_What do you think *it is that *Santa does on normal days?_" Whereas your sentence with "that" is still incorrect: "_What do you think *it is that *my profession is?_"


It sounds very very awkward with questions with 'to be' rather than 'to do'- and that's why I think EMP's example with profession seems to be very different!!

*Can cleft sentences be formed with 'be' in the second part?* I looked at one paper and there wasn't even one example. Here're my tries:

_- So, you are an alternate for scullery maid in the play, are you?
- No! It is the Queen that I am in the play! (It is the Queen that she is)_

_- So your profession is a diplomat?
- No, it is an MI5 agent that my profession is. (It is an agent that it is)_
(Super awkward because the first 'it' looks like it is the profession's.)
_or
- So your profession is your greatest hobby?
- No, it is a cover for MI5 job that my profession is.
_


----------



## elroy

The sentence with "that" is correct, with no need to postulate an ellipsis ("it is").  In fact, in the version without "that," "that" is elided!


----------



## Trochfa

Glenfarclas said:


> What do you think Santa Claus does on normal days?



I think much of this depends on style, regional dialect and also on whether one uses, or speaks, BrE or AmE [or one of the many other types around the world].  In my experience BrE speakers will often use "that" in sentences like this whereas AmE speakers will not. We were taught many years ago that we had to use "that" in these sentences. The removal of words such as "that" seems to be a common feature of AmE.  Glenfarclas' sentence is more efficient, but I still don't have a problem with "that" as suggested by velisarius [post #4] and supported by the examples provided by Oddmania [#28].


----------



## siares

What do you think that Santa Claus does on normal days?


elroy said:


> The sentence with "that" is *correct*, with no need to postulate an ellipsis ("it is").





Trochfa said:


> In my experience BrE speakers will *often use "that"* in sentences like this


Do you find it *100% correct* then? Just to check, because, the other two contributors before who found it correct found it only marginally so:


Glenfarclas said:


> I would find a "that" there to *be marginally acceptable, but probably formally incorrect.*





velisarius said:


> Thanks. I thought so too.


----------



## elroy

It is 100% correct.


----------



## Trochfa

To me, in BrE, it is a correct and formal way of speaking and writing.  I am happy with it in the sentence or left out of it (as indicated by the brackets used by Oddmania in post #28 to show that it is optional).  That may not be the case for other speakers or writers from other regions of the UK/Ireland, the USA or other parts of the world. _My point is that neither is "wrong" IMO_. However, the modern trend is probably to leave it out.


----------



## VicNicSor

If this one is correct:
What do you think *that *Santa Claus does on normal days?"

... then:
1. What *do you think* *it is that* Santa Claus does on normal days?
2. What *is it that* Santa Claus does on normal days?
3. What* that* Santa Claus does on normal days?

The '3' must be correct too


----------



## jmichaelm

phuctinh25 said:


> Thank you everybody. But I'm confused very much



Personally I think if you simply read the first sentence in the first answer and disregard everything afterwards you will be fine.



heypresto said:


> It would sound more natural if you removed the second 'what': "What do you think Santa Claus does on normal days?"


----------



## Trochfa

[In response to VicNicSor]

IMO the first two are correct because "that" follows at least one verb [including the word "is"]. [N.B. There is a typo in #1].

#3 is incorrect because there is no verb between "what" and "that".  If "that" is optional then #3 could be read as "What Santa Claus does on normal days?", which is equally wrong.


----------



## VicNicSor

Trochfa said:


> [In response to VicNicSor]
> 
> IMO the first two are correct because "that" follows at least one verb [including the word "is"]. [N.B. There is a typo in #1].
> 
> #3 is incorrect because there is no verb between "what" and "that".  If "that" is optional then #3 could be read as "What Santa Claus does on normal days?", which is equally wrong.


(thank you for the typo)

That's exactly what I meant "That" is a relative pronoun which refers to the "it". If there's no "it", then the "that" doesn't make any sense in both sentences:
What do you think *that *Santa Claus does on normal days?"
What* that* Santa Claus does on normal days?

Even if we correct the latter to "What* does that* Santa Claus *do *on normal days?" -- it still makes no sense...


----------



## Trochfa

VicNicSor said:


> What do you think *that *Santa Claus does on normal days?"



But in that sentence the relative pronoun "that" refers to the pronoun "you".

There is no pronoun in the following two sentences which is why they don't make sense.


VicNicSor said:


> What* that* Santa Claus does on normal days?
> 
> Even if we correct the latter to "What* does that* Santa Claus *do *on normal days?" -- it still makes no sense...


----------



## VicNicSor

Trochfa said:


> But in that sentence the relative pronoun "that" refers to the pronoun "you".


No, sorry... The antecedent of "that" is "it". If we remove it, it does not mean that "that" automatically changes its antecedent.

Compare:
What do *you*, *who* is Santa's best friend, think Santa Claus does on normal days? -- Now the relative "who" refers to "you".


----------



## Oddmania

Vic, you're mixing up two different uses of the word "_that_".

In "_What do you think that Santa does?_", the word _that _is a conjunction and can be omitted. It is the same "_that_" as in "_I think that Santa goes on holiday in summer_" or "_Do you think that Santa goes on holiday?_".

In "_What is it that Santa does?_", the word "_that_" is a relative pronoun that refers back to the word "it". The sentence could be rephrased as "_What is the activity *that *Santa does... ?_". If you choose to remove "is it" from the sentence, you should remove the relative pronoun "_that_" as well, otherwise it would just be hanging in there with no antecedent. That's why _"What *that *Santa does?" _is incorrect.

PS: If "_that_" was a relative pronoun in the sentence "_What do you think that Santa does?_",  it could be changed to "_which_" (or to "_whom_" when referring to person). But it can't. You cannot say "_What do you think *which *Santa does?_" and you cannot say "_Who do I think *whom *I will marry?_" either. Hence, "_that_" is not a relative pronoun. It is a conjunction and can be left out of the sentence. I hope it's clear enough.


----------



## Trochfa

Thank you Oddmania.  To be honest I was beginning to tie myself in knots!  That explains things far better than I ever could.


----------



## VicNicSor

So then you disagree with Veli here, OM?:


velisarius said:


> I see it as ellipsis: _What do you think (it is) that Santa does on normal days?_


------------


Oddmania said:


> In "_What do you think that Santa does?_", the word _that _is a conjunction and can be omitted. It is the same "_that_" as in "_I think that Santa goes on holiday in summer_" or "_Do you think that Santa goes on holiday?_".


I disagree, those are different "that". In your two examples, the conjunction "that" introduces the clause which is the direct object of the verb "think". But in the OP, "do you think" here, as was said above, is "parenthetical" and could be omitted: "What does Santa do?"


----------



## Oddmania

VicNicSor said:


> So then you disagree with Veli here, OM?:


Yes, I read the sentence differently than Velisarius.


VicNicSor said:


> In the OP, "do you think" here, as was said above, is "parenthetical"...


You're going to need to come up with better terminology to convince me, because that's not an actual grammatical notion. You think it's a "parenthetical" element, but I do not. The question is not "What does Santa do?"; it is "What _do you think_ Santa does?".


VicNicSor said:


> ...and could be omitted: "What does Santa do?"


No. If you leave it out, you get "_What Santa does?_", which is not a valid question.


VicNicSor said:


> I disagree, those are different "that". In your two examples, the conjunction "that" introduces the clause which is the direct object of the verb "think".


And so does "_that_" in "_What do you think that Santa does?_". The clause "Santa does" (introduced by _that_) is the object of "to think", and "what" is the object of the verb "to do". As you can see, they're both intertwined.


----------



## siares

Found on Learner's dictionary (slightly paraphrased)

(You can also use, "What do you think _that_ I should do?" - the word _that_ is optional.)
In this question, the dependent clause, “(_that_) I should do,” is the object of the verb, _think_. The subject of the dependent clause, _I,_ comes before the verb, _should do;_ they are not inverted to question form.
_*Think*_ is one of a large group of verbs that are used in this question construction, which can be described like this:

_What do_ + subject + verb + [_that_-clause as the direct object of the verb]

Here are some other examples, with the verbs *believe, hope, claim, and wish*:... (I'm not copying them because of the limit)


----------



## VicNicSor

This is what I was going to post before siares's post:


Oddmania said:


> You're going to need to come up with better terminology to convince me, because that's not an actual grammatical notion. You think it's a "parenthetical" element, but I do not. The question is not "What does Santa do?"; it is "What _do you think_ Santa does?".


The question in the OP is exactly "What does Santa do?" "Do you think" just adds the meaning of "in your opinion": "What in your opinion does Santa do?"


Oddmania said:


> No. If you leave it out, you get "_What Santa does?_", which is not a valid question.


If I leave it out, the indirect question automatically becomes a direct one, and the auxiliary verb pops up. I don't think it is a problem at all.


Oddmania said:


> And so does "_that_" in "_What do you think that Santa does?_". The clause "Santa does" (introduced by _that_) is the object of "to think", and "what" is the object of the verb "to do". As you can see, they're both intertwined.



1. "_Do you* think *(what?) Santa goes on holiday?_"
2. "_*What *do you* think *(what?) Santa does?_"

It's the first "*what*" in '2' that prevents "Santa does" from being the direct object as "_Santa goes on holiday_" is in '1'.
--------------------------------------------------------
But now I'm puzzled. All this is very strange


----------



## Oddmania

Vic, I'm sorry but none of what you're saying makes any sense to me. Of course "_do you think_" adds the idea of "_what is your opinion?_", this is precisely what "to think" means!  "What do you believe he did?" adds the idea of a belief, and "What do you hope he does?" adds the idea of a hope.

Then you go on to say that "do you think" is like a parenthesis that can be removed freely, and yet you need to add words and change the syntax for the sentence to still make sense...


VicNicSor said:


> 1. "_Do you* think *(what?) Santa goes on holiday?_"
> 2. "_*What *do you* think *(what?) Santa does?_"
> 
> It's the first "*what*" in '2' that prevents "Santa does" from being the direct object as "_Santa goes on holiday_" is in '1'.


I honestly haven't a clue what you're talking about. Please read my message #49 again. "_What_" is the object of "to do" and "_Santa does_" is the object of "to think"_._ Ultimately, the full object of "to think" is "_Santa does what".
_
_You think (that) *Santa does what*?_
The words in pink constitute the object of "_to think_", and the one word underlined is the object of "_to do_".
Everything that follows the word "think" complements "think", and everything that follows the word "does" complements "does".​


VicNicSor said:


> But now I'm puzzled. All this is very strange


This is a very strange way to say "mea culpa".


----------



## VicNicSor

Basically, my idea was that in the phrase "_*What *do you* think *Santa does?_" the real object of "think" was "what" and not "Santa does".

_Do you* think *Santa goes on holiday? -- _You think that Santa goes on holiday.
_*What *do you* think *Santa does? _--  You think that Santa does.

Because you think *what *Santa does


----------



## VicNicSor

VicNicSor said:


> Because you think *what *Santa does


On the other hand, this doesn't sound right to me too. Because you rather think *about *what Santa does. But still, not "think (that) Santa does".

But I still believe that "_Do you* think *(that)_"_ and _"_*What *do you* think*_" act differently.


----------



## Loob

Vic, maybe these patterns will help:

1. Start with a clause with an ordinary direct object (in pink):
_Do you think [that] Santa does needlework? _​2. Substitute the question word _What_ for the pink direct object:
_What__ do you think [that] Santa does?*  (Note: t*_*he "that" here is usually omitted.)*​
You can do something similar when the question word represents the subject of the subordinate clause:
1. Start with a clause with an ordinary subject (in blue):
_Do you think [that] needlework takes up most of Santa's time?_​2. Substitute the question word _What_ for the blue subject:
_What do you think takes up most of Santa's time?* (*_*Note: the "that" here must be omitted.)*​
EDIT: typo​


_
_


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Dear Loob, the clear voice of sanity, as ever, much missed.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glad to see you back, Loob

But, whether *what* represents the direct object of "does" (does *needlework*), or represents the subject (*needlework *takes up), or even replaces the word "does" (*goes on holiday*), I can't see the difference.
Compare:
_What do you think Santa does? = What do you think *it is that* Santa does?
 What do you think takes up most of Santa's time? = What do you think *it is that*  takes up most of Santa's time?_

The thing is when you say "Do you think (that) xxxxxxxx?", or "I think (that) xxxxxxxxxx.", the "xxxxxxxxxxx" is* one inseparable* object of "think".
_Do you think *(that) Santa does needlework*? _

But when you say _*What* do you think *(that)* *Santa does*?_, the object is divided into two parts (because you can't say "I think that Santa does"). That's the very thing that's confusing me.

However, I must probably just memorize, that for some reason, if the "what" represents the object, the "that" could be used (_What do you think [that] Santa does?)

_


----------



## siares

VicNicSor said:


> if the "what" represents the object





Oddmania said:


> "_What_" is the object of "to do"


Bact to EMP's example:
'my profession is' then doesn't work on the grounds that 'is a noun' isn't an object?

She is a doctor.
_What do you think that she is?_

And neither do middle voice or intransitive verbs:
_What do you think that is cooking?
What do you think that fell down?
_
Are all the three crosses correct?


----------



## Loob

Hello siares

There's nothing wrong with
_What do you think that she is?_​though we'd be more likely to say
_What do you think she is?_​
(I have the feeling we may tend to keep the "that" in such situations when we're using a marked stress pattern: _What do *you* think that she is?)
_
As regards
_What do you think that is cooking?
What do you think that fell down?_​yes, the "that" is wrong in both of those:
_What do you think is cooking?
What do you think fell down?_​


----------



## siares

Thank you very much, Loob, and thank you everybody for an interesting thread.


----------



## phuctinh25

Thank you everyone  Happy new year 2017


----------

