This is supplementary questions. Would you please answer me again?
Propter quod consolamini invicem et aedificate alterutrum, sicut et facitis.(1 Thessalonians 5,11)
Sorry but what I intended to ask about is 'et' in 'sicut et facitis'.
In fact, I wonder why 'et' is here. If it refers to 'as you do', 'et' is not needed.
Is there any special meaning?
Atque aliqua ex illis cum regum nomina quaeret, quae loca, qui montes, quaeve ferantur aquae, (Ars Amatoria, 1,219-220)
As for 'ferantur', I am still not sure about the exact meaning in spite of your answer. I think the subject of 'ferantur' is 'quae loca, qui montes quae aquae'. Right? If 'ferantur' is translated as “carried (i.e. flows)”, the meaning of the other two subjects seem strange in connection with 'ferantur'.
Sorry to bother you but please help me again.
1.In “Propter quod consolamini invicem et aedificate alterutrum, sicut et facitis”(1 Thessalonians 5,11) the expression “sicut et” means exactly “just as”, so that:”sicut et facitis” means:” just as you are doing “.
In short, “et”(= just) in “sicut et” (see the Greek text καθὼς[sicut] καὶ [et]) is used to strengthen “sicut” (= as).
Therefore “et” is needed in “sicut et facitis” meaning:” just as you are doing”.
2. In “Atque aliqua ex illis cum regum nomina quaeret, quae loca, qui montes, quaeve ferantur aquae” (Ovid, Ars Amatoria, 1,219-220) the subject of “ferantur” is “aquae” , not “'quae loca, qui montes” whose implied verb is “sint”, so that “aliqua ex illis cum ...... quaeret quae loca, qui montes, quaeve ferantur aquae...” is the following:
”when (cum)some [girl] (aliqua) among them (ex illis) asks (quaeret) what (quae) places (loca), what (qui) mountains (montes) [there are ( sint)]....or (-ve) what (quae-) rivers (aquae) are carried ..,” i.e.:
“when some girl among them asks... what places, what mountains there are or what rivers flow..”.
In short, the verb “fero” (see the present subjunctive, passive voice “ferantur”) cannot refer to “loca” and “montes” simply because places and mountains cannot be carried/moved, according to the idea of motion predominating in the verb “fero”, as used in this context, where “fero” in the passive form refers to a flowing river, not to “loca” and “montes” whose implied verb must be “sint”, of course.