Iphigenia in her speech, talking to Orestes about sending a message to Argos:
θέλοις ἄν, εἰ σῴσαιμί σ᾽, ἀγγεῖλαί τί μοι
πρὸς Ἄργος ἐλθὼν τοῖς ἐμοῖς ἐκεῖ φίλοις,
δέλτον τ᾽ ἐνεγκεῖν, ἥν τις οἰκτίρας ἐμὲ
ἔγραψεν αἰχμάλωτος, οὐχὶ τὴν ἐμὴν
φονέα νομίζων χεῖρα, τοῦ νόμου δ᾽ ὕπο
θνῄσκειν τὰ τῆς θεοῦ, τάδε δίκαι᾽ ἡγουμένης;
οὐδένα γὰρ εἶχον ὅστις ἀγγείλαι μολὼν
ἐς Ἄργος αὖθις, τάς <τ᾽> ἐμὰς ἐπιστολὰς
πέμψειε σωθεὶς τῶν ἐμῶν φίλων τινί.
From a syntactical point of view, these lines are easy to comprehend, but I stumbled upon the accents of the two verbs in bold text. Now, ἀγγεῖλαί is the infinitive with θέλοις ἄν, meaning ''would you, if I would save you, be willing to send ...''. Since the -αι in infinite forms counts as one, the iota gets the circumflex. But I do not see why the second verb, ἀγγείλαι, gets a different accent. This could only be the case if it would be an (1) imperative form, which is impossible in this context. τ᾽ in line 589 suggests it should be, like πέμψειε, an (2) optative aorist 3rd person singular. This is probably why it was inserted by an editor. But how is this form of the optative actually ''formed''? I would appreciate any valuable comment.
Is my analysis correct? I'm okay with accents, but these things are rather difficult. The second ἀγγείλαι can't really be an infinitive, I guess? (it would have the circumflex)
vincatur oportet aut vincat