Use of 'vir in a Latin sentence.

I'm a little confused. (Not unusual)
How would you translate that sentence?

The man Ovid composes the things...?

Yes.

. . . or "Ovid, a man, composes . . ."

The order of the words depends on what one wishes to emphasize.

I was interested in hearing why you were "confused". Do you think this is cumbersome, in some way? I am more interested in the Latin perspective, rather than the translation; since the translation can be anything we want, so that it is properly expressed in English.

In other words, if we were to take my translation as the English expression we would wish to write in Latin, do you think the Latin would be better, constructed differently (so that "what one wishes to emphasize" is less ambiguous)? I am particularly interested to know if there are any grammatical errors (wrong tense, etc).

FYI, my Latin is small to non-existent, so I am not able to make a meaningful contribution, in this respect.

> I was interested in hearing why you were "confused". Do you think
> this is cumbersome, in some way?
It seems like an odd sentence. I wanted to be sure I understood what
it was he wanted to say.

> In other words, if we were to take my translation as the English
> expression we would wish to write in Latin, do you think the Latin
> would be better, constructed differently (so that "what one wishes
> to emphasize" is less ambiguous)?
No, your English is an accurate translation of the Vir Ovid . . . version.

> I am particularly interested to know if there are any grammatical
> errors (wrong tense, etc).
None I am aware of.