Smite is an interesting word for which I found a use today. However, my understanding of its conjugation is as follows:
- I/you smite
- He/she/it smites
- We/you/they smite
And then "I was smitten (down/by)"; "I have been smitten"; "I smote my palm with my clenched fist" etc (last one courtesy of Wiktionary).
Smote is debatably interchangeable although 'smote' is the simple past and 'smitten' is the past participle. But for the following, should it be:
- "With my argument, I fear I would be smote(d) down in court" or
- "With my argument, I fear I would be smite(d) in court" or
- "With my argument, I fear I would be smitten in court" or
- "With my argument, I fear I would be smit in court"
Which is it?
Expanded meaning of the sentence: "(on the basis of) my argument, I fear I would (have a decision found against me) in court"
Furthermore, is this a case of 'auxiliary would', is this just the plain subjunctive form -- or does the example sentence actually fall into the category of an omitted and inferred 'ordinary past indicative' ('was' in this case, theoretically making the full sentence "If I was in court, I fear I would be smote/smoted/smite/smited/smitten/smit down")?
Apologies for the braintaxing archaic English question on a Friday!