Am I correct in thinking that the future passive particles convey a purposive sense better than the bare infinitives would? I imagine they mostly do. // Verum est, ut imaginor.
* The word videlicet is something I picked up from observation. Is it correct to use it essentially to mean "to wit"? Does it function like a copula, in that the elements on each side need to be in the same case? Yes, alongside nempe and scilicet // unâ cum nempe et scilicet, anglicè "to wit" vertitur
* Is it understandable that intrandum is to be taken as modifying the entire indirect question introduced by quō? I really don't know about that but I don't see why not. Maybe "Ibi intrandum quo..." // De hâc re, incertus sum. Eodem tempore, ignoro cur sic non sit.
* Straying away from classicality for a bit, what exactly is the most polite way to handle modern proper nouns like Enterprise? Just leave them uninflected? Uninflected for proper modern names and brands. // Indeclinabilia anglicè nomina propria nova et indeclinabiles notae societatum fabricatoriarum.
Spatium: Finitio Finalis
Hae sunt expeditiones navis sideralis Enterprise,—per missionem eius quinquennem mundorum novorum et alienorum investigandorum, novorum animantium cultuumque quaerendorum, confidenter prodeundi quo negant praecessisse quemquam.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.