Pl. Ap. 34c6-7

[NateD26]

τάχ᾽ ἂν οὖν τις ταῦτα ἐννοήσας αὐθαδέστερον ἂν πρός με σχοίη
καὶ ὀργισθεὶς αὐτοῖς τούτοις θεῖτο ἂν μετ᾽ ὀργῆς τὴν ψῆφον.


Why was ἄν repeated so many times? Wouldn't it have been understood that the postpositive ἄν after τάχα goes with
σχοίη & θεῖτο? Or was it done perhaps to prevent its association with the aorist participles (contary-to-fact, which wouldn't have made
sense in this context)?

[modus.irrealis]

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.

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)

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?

[NateD26]

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.

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
arguments, as the remaining ἄν goes with θεῖτο?

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?

[modus.irrealis]

Thanks, modus. Does ἐν ὁπόσαις here mean "in the number of ways in which the better..."? The translation on Perseus confused me.

There's an implicit πόλεσι, "in all cities where..."

[quote="modus.irrealis"Thanks. That makes much sense. But would you agree that ὀργισθεὶς is then a regular circumstantial participle, having been angered by these very arguments, as the remaining ἄν goes with θεῖτο?[/quote]
Yes. But then is there some difference the ἄν is supposed to indicate? It all seems very subtle to me.

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?

Thanks for the reference. αὐθαδέστερον is natural for emphasis, so I'd say that's the best explanation. (I think that χρῆσθαι is difficult to translate -- I'd guess the basic idea in the Greek is "we would experience/make use of the mountain as having fewer defenders" which at least implies "find that it has fewer defenders" but is a bit stronger.)