Re: Ovid Liber Primus
As pointed out above, the couplet contains three bits of grammar that are translational bugaboos for (modern) English speakers: The ablative absolute, a perfect passive participle apparently "transferred" to the object, and a relative placed before the antecedent. The basic translation crutch for the first two--translate abl. abs as "with <noun> being/having been <verb>", translate ppp. as "having been <verb>"--are extremely stilted renderings, and preserving the order in the third makes for a convoluted sentence in English: "What Hector was about to touch, (his) hands, that man, with (his) teacher demanding, presented having been ordered to the whips." Yikes that's awful; one crutch per couplet is tolerable, three in the same thought is unforgivable.
Translating sentences like this is when students learn to put away their childish things. Yes, iussas modifies manus, but the sentence reads better in English if it modifies ille. The abl. absolute is technically "separate" from all other parts of the sentence, but it's more natral if it's integrated--sometimes temporally/causally by supplying a word like "after" or "since", sometimes more directly, like in Iynx's excellent suggestion utilizing "to". And I have no problem swapping antecedent and relative in an English translation, e.g. "Hector was about to touch hands which...". I'm also not above adding English words that calrify meaning of the more laconic Latin, e.g. the tense order between sensurus erat and praebuit is better shown using a word like "once" rather than a lengthy collection of modals. Putting it all together: "Hector was about to touch hands which he (Achilles) was once ordered to present to his demanding teacher for beatings." The explanatory (Achilles) is probably not necessary if the couplet is translated in context.
Good translation demands a more sophisticated approach that the "fill in the blank" of beginner crutches. It takes practice but it's worth it.