And because the presence or lack of this inconsistency is precisely what would make this odd or not, a statement that it is "not odd" is just as much an exegetical opinion as is my statement the other way that you object to.
It would be easier to go over Greek examples than dictionary summaries, as glosses are very easy to misinterpret.
In LSJ I.a, for example, where this fits, there are really only two senses to all of the examples: "restitution", and "claiming" what is one's own by right. Though this can sometimes be hard to see if you don't look at the sources. [Aside: In general, not having gone back to the sources is a nasty habit of the people who put together Brill. Though I don't claim anything specific about their ἀπαιτέω article.]
Andocides is quoted by the LSJ in a way that, out of context, does make it look like ἀπαιτεῖν is distinguished from αἰτεῖν simply as a "demand that cannot be refused":
εἰ μὲν βούλεσθε, αἰτῶ, εἰ δὲ μὴ βούλεσθε, ἀπαιτῶ
However, in the context of the passage, he's actually asking for what has already been given him (and using the ἀπαιτέω τινά τι form): Ἃ γάρ μοι ... ἔδοτε, ... ταῦθ’ ὑμᾶς, εἰ μὲν βούλεσθε, αἰτῶ, εἰ δὲ μὴ βούλεσθε, ἀπαιτῶ. He's going to stand on his rights if they make him.
Other examples from I.a that perhaps require some explanation:
D.18.245 ἧς ἔμ’ ἀπαιτεῖς εὐθύνας (claim the account they can expect of him)
Arist. de An.408a18 ἀπαιτήσειε δ’ ἄν τις τοῦτό γε καὶ παρ’ Ἐμπεδοκλέους (claim the explanation they should expect)
And notice that E.Supp.385. includes "πρὸς χάριν" in the original context
Statistics: Posted by jeidsath — Mon Oct 09, 2023 9:04 pm