We require a fire, sire, to make a pyre for the shyer Squire Meyer, since he did expire from a sickness most dire, and when we went to inquire of a slyer wool dyer from the Shire, whom at a prior time we did hire to fire the pyre, the liar earned the ire of the entire choir by saying he had decided to retire and become a buyer of fine attire and copper wire.
Feuer is neuter (das Feuer).
The accusative of ein Feuer is ein Feuer, because the accusative of neuter things is always the same as the nominative. (In all the languages I know.)
einen would be the masculine accusative form, e.g. der Apfel / ein Apfel / Wir brauchen einen Apfel.
Ohh I just got it by myself, it's because "Feuer" is a neutral word, and the accusative article in a neutral word is "ein" as well. I will leave this, up just in case someone has the same trouble.
EDIT: Thanks mizinamo, you answered at the same time I was writting. Appreciate it!
Yes, that is the appropriate way to say it in English.
"a fire" is an object like "a car" or "a horse".
One wouldn't say "We need car." or "I own horse".
Those would be "We need
a car." or "I own
It is getting cold. We need
a fire in the fireplace.
a fire in the kitchen.
Why would you want to say several? The comment that asks about "one" asks about it in comparison to "a" fire. I don't know why "one" is wrong, maybe it sounds too specific and there's no need to count when you only need one? I mean, you probably wouldn't say "we need one fire" in English, instead of "we need a fire", so why translate it that way?
because 'we wanted' is past tense, the sentence in the exercise is present tense