Why not "we will ask anew tomorrow"? That's correct in English, and it fits the "di nuovo" construction, also.
I think it should be accepted, even if I am not native English. I am adding the translation. If somebody is against it, please let me know it! :)
While you are at it, please add "We will ask again tomorrow". Not archaic, just correct use of English in the future.
Great observation! How interesting to see the literal connection. Probably from Latin influence in the past. Archaic maybe, but still valid, in my opinion.
Yes, and it is a more literal, appropriate translation. Duo over-uses "is/am/are going" as a substitute for actual future tense, and in my opinion is teaching people English which is not the best.
I guess there is a difference between "We are going to ask again tomorrow" and "Tomorrow we will ask again," but as an English speaker for almost 50 years, I have to say I couldn't explain it. Alas.
The phrasal future (going to) has a strong nuance of emphasis to it that ordinary future does not. It's as if the two sentences were: "I will call you tomorrow - probably/if I remember/if I have time" or "I am going to call you tomorrow - without fail/and every day after that until I get an answer/so be ready for my call!"
An additional difference: "is/are going to" is present continuous tense, not future tense, and it only becomes a kind of jerry-rigged future by hanging the infinitive onto the end. It thus implies present planning and present expression of intent, while "will go" is more an expression of projected probable action in the future. Phrasal future is a kind of mongrel future tense.
Duo over-uses the phrasal future "going to" to an unwarranted extent. Most American English speakers would say, "I'll ask again tomorrow" or more formally, "I will ask again tomorrow".
"I am going to ask again tomorrow" has a kind of emphatic nuance to it - as if the complete sentence is "Since you won't or can't tell me today, I am going to ask tomorrow - you can count on that. And I will keep asking every day until I get an answer!"
Using the phrasal future "going to" (that's what they call it in Spanish) instead of simple future "will" is a work-around - it's not the actual translation of the text. Duo here is violating a rule of translation - to be as literal as is reasonable possible, unless it is awkward or there is an idiom which has to be observed.
Future tense is "will go". Phrasal future is "are going". There is a difference that Duo fails to observe, and that's wrong.