| This gives me strength to face the busy day lies
ahead. |
|
This is not correct. The relative pronoun
that (or
which) cannot be omitted when it is the subject of its clause. It
has to be "busy day
that lies ahead".
However, if the relative pronoun subject is followed by a form of the verb
to be, both the relative pronoun and the form of
to be may be omitted. (This is called Whiz-Deletion.)
This is not the package that was sent yesterday. > This is not the package sent yesterday.
Jerry is the man who is sitting next to Joy. > Jerry is the man sitting next to Joy.
These are the flowers which were picked by Gina this morning.
> These are the flowers picked by Gina this morning.
The examples below are exceptions. They are cases where both the relative pronoun and a form of
to have is omitted. This occurs
very rarely, and, as far as I know, only with a few intransitive verbs of motion, like
come and
go. Both of these examples use
come, of course. Note that it is the past participle
come that is used, not the present tense
come. By coincidence, both forms are spelled the same way.
| 1- The room was filled with familiar ghosts come to help celebrate her birthday.
2- The hospital was filled with terrified people come to find out whether their children were alive. |
|
In the case of
go, then, we would have to use the past participle
gone in a sentence something like this:
The town was nearly deserted because of all the people who had gone away for the summer. >
The town was nearly deserted because of all the people gone away for the summer.
And even this is only borderline acceptable. Applying the model of these exceptions to your sentence about the
busy day that lies ahead would be wrong. Even if you use the past
participle lain, and change the tense appropriately, giving
This gave me strength to face the busy day that had lain ahead. >
*This gave me strength to face the busy day lain ahead.
it would still be wrong, because to lie is not a verb of motion that allows the deletion of that had.
CJ