For an obvious example, Latin has no words for "a" and "the". Any time those words come up, they are summarily discarded in translation to Latin.
Obviously! Then even someone seeking to translate each word by a word couldn't do it (unless they imitate (very) late latin and take
ille and
unus).
I was thinking of an example like, say:
As I was having dinner, your letter was delivered to me.
Cum cenam haberem, tuae litterae sunt redditae mihi. (Me; and it would be correct if we conceded to make "having dinner" into one word,
cenarem).
Fairly litteral back translation = as I was was having dinner, your letter was delivered to me. (Looks good English - at least as far as I can tell).
Mihi cenanti litterae tuae sunt redditae. (Cicero)
To me having dinner your letter was delivered. Looks less good in English. But is it less good Latin? It's just that that usage of the participle is a feature of Latin which English doesn't have to the same extent, but it expresses fairly the same thing that you would express in English with "as/when I was..." So if someone asks me to translate a similar sentence, I won't hesitate to use the participle in that way, even if it's word-for-word less close the English "as I was..."
I'm not doubting that the ablative version is better than quam but can you explain why this is the case for me?
Wait, I misread what you put! Can you explain the differences between quam and the ablative and when and why I'd use one over the other? Or simply preference?
I didn't say one was better than the other.
Either is perfectly correct. I said:
Not that in this particular case the version with quam is less good than the one with the ablative
I was saying the rest in general.