[Idiom] is omitting that after be verb possible?

[hhs010120]

Hello, great teachers,

I wonder omitting 'that' after be-verb is grammatically okay.

1. The special thing is that the puppets are not clearly visible.
2. The special thing is the puppets are not clearly visible.
3. It is the puppets are not clearly visible.

#1 is okay. But what about #2 and #3? My friend said that #2 is okay but #3 is confusing.

I will look forward to your reply.

Thanks.

 

[emsr2d2]

Hello. [STRIKE]great teachers,[/STRIKE]

I wonder whether omitting 'that' after the verb "be" [STRIKE]-verb[/STRIKE] is grammatically okay.

1. The special thing is that the puppets are not clearly visible.
2. The special thing is the puppets are not clearly visible.
3. It is the puppets are not clearly visible.

#1 is okay. But what about #2 and #3? My friend said that #2 is okay but #3 is confusing.

I [STRIKE]will[/STRIKE] look forward to your reply.

[STRIKE]Thanks.[/STRIKE] Unnecessary. Thank us after we help you, by clicking the "Thank" button.

1 is grammatically correct.
2 is also acceptable.
3 is wrong. "It is that the puppets ..." would be OK in response to something like "What is it that makes this special?"

Note, however, that "The special thing is ..." is unclear. What exactly do you mean by "special"?

 

[GoesStation]

Your thread title should have been Is omitting "that" after the verb "be" possible? The quotation marks are not optional.