modus.irrealis wrote:I think the third one is not surprising as it seems relatively common to have ἄν repeated after a conjunction like καί, e.g. from Laws ἐν ὁπόσαις μὲν γὰρ οἱ ἀμείνονες νικῶσιν τὸ πλῆθος καὶ τοὺς χείρους, ὀρθῶς ἂν αὕτη κρείττων τε ἑαυτῆς λέγοιθ’ ἡ πόλις, ἐπαινοῖτό τε ἂν δικαιότατα τῇ τοιαύτῃ νίκῃ. But like you say, it's not necessary.
Thanks, modus. Does ἐν ὁπόσαις here mean "in the number of ways in which the better..."? The translation on Perseus confused me.
modus.irrealis wrote:For the second one, after thinking about it, I think the likeliest thing is that it does go with the participle but represents the aorist optative, so it would be equivalent to τάχ' ἂν οὖν τις ταῦτα ἐννοήσαι καὶ ...
I'd compare it to things like ὑμεῖς δ’ ἴσως τάχ’ ἂν ἀχθόμενοι, ὥσπερ οἱ νυστάζοντες ἐγειρόμενοι, κρούσαντες ἄν με, πειθόμενοι Ἀνύτῳ, ῥᾳδίως ἂν ἀποκτείναιτε (Apology 31a)
Thanks. That makes much sense. But would you agree that ὀργισθεὶς is then a regular circumstantial participle, having been angered by these very
as the remaining ἄν goes with θεῖτο?
modus.irrealis wrote:But then I can find things like τάχ’ οὖν ἂν ὑπὸ φιλοτιμίας ἐπίσχοι ἡμῖν ἂν τοῦ γράφειν (Phaedrus 257c) where it's just repeated. I know that sometimes it's repeated if there's a large break between the original ἄν and the verb, but I don't know if that applies in this case, but maybe there's some subtle emphasis that these repeated ἄν reflect?
Smyth does note both options (break for subordinate clause, etc, & for emphasis) in 1765 (although I didn't understand
his translation for X.A.4.6.13 in subsection a, mainly why he translated χρῆσθαι as to find
). Is the emphasis related
perhaps to αὐθαδέστερον?