Although, as usual, the sentence here is given no context, it would clearly only appear in a conversation. You will be interested to learn the following from Maiden & Robustelli's A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian (Ch. 15, Sect. 4): "It is characteristic of informal and spoken Italian that future time is indicated not by 'future', 'future perfect' and 'future-in-the-past' tense forms, but by the present, passato prossimo and imperfect indicative tense forms, respectively. Indeed, in ordinary, informal, discourse, expressions such as Te lo manderò quando l'avrò finito 'I'll send you it when I've finished it', or Seppi che sarebbe arrivato dopo qualche giorno 'I learned he'd arrive in a few days' time', sound unduly elaborate. The more spontaneous expressions would be Te lo mando quando l'ho finito and Seppi che arrivava dopo qualche giorno. Poi, quando se n’è andato, gli si possono fare gli sberleffi dietro. 'Then, when he's gone, we'll be able to make faces at him behind his back.' Lasciamoli che prendano il potere. Così si smascherano al cento per cento. 'Let's let them take power. In that way they will be completely unmasked.' Mi avevi giurato che non le parlavi più. 'You had sworn to me that you would never speak to her again.' Quando mi ha detto che quei soldi me li restituiva il mese dopo, ci ho creduto. 'When he told me he would give me the money back the next month, I believed it.' In fact, in informal discourse the present tends to be used to express future time, while the future tense forms tend to be restricted to the 'conjectural' value."
This information from corbettf75 is very useful and much appreciated. The advice from a prior commenter to "stick to the present tense" when submitting translations is a wise one that I have learned to follow almost religiously...I, too, have found that it produces the best results, and you don't lose as many hearts!
For some sentences I agree with, but "Seppi che arrivava" is not correct, "seppi che sarebbe arrivato/a" is correct. "Poi, quando se n'è andato, gli si possono fare gli sberleffi dietro" is not Italian... "poi, quando se ne sarà andato, gli potremo fare gli sberleffi" or, "poi, quando se n'è andato, gli abbiamo fatto gli sberleffi". "Lasciamoli che prendano il potere", "lasciamo che prendano il potere" here, "li" doesn't work, if you want you can put "loro"... "lasciamo che loro prendano il potere". "Mi avevi giurato che non le parlavi più", acceptable talking, not writing, "mi avevi giurato che non le avresti parlato più". "Quando mi ha detto che quei soldi me li restituiva il giorno dopo, ci ho creduto", "quando mi ha detto che quei soldi me li avrebbe restituiti il giorno dopo, ci ho creduto. Please, don't say things that are not true. We don't speak like that and if you're Italian you don't speak Italian.
I've noticed that sticking to the simple present tense gives the best result. 'Shall' is regarding future, it is like 'will'. Stick to 'How many . . . do we buy'.
Besides, they maybe just want to know how much they USUALLY buy and not how much they shall buy. I think it's better to always translate such sentences 'tense by tense' since there are no other indications.
I would rather say "How much wool should we buy? Because wool is not sold by lengt but by heigh. In my country, for instance, you buy half a kilo of wool for a sweater. (sorry my English is not so good).
Your english was pretty spot on - "Length" and "Height" typos but otherwise it was very easy to understand. Don't put yourself down. :)
Lingots...the currency in Diagon Alley. May be exchanged at Gringot's. :-) (that's what I think of every time I see Lingot)
Using "should" in the sentence changes the tense/mood (I forget which - "should" is advanced grammar). Sticking to present tense: "How much wool do we buy?"
"Should" is the condizionale of the verb "dovere"...so that would be dovremmo in the noi form. That's way beyond this simply lesson in the present tense.
The recording lets this down again. without knowing the word compriamo, it sounds more like compleano at both slow and fast speeds. I must say that I am becoming disillusioned.
The new male voice seems to say "compriama". Def doesn't end with an "o" sound.
It seems that in some places it is sold by the kilo and in others by the meter or yard and other ways. It's great getting ideas from all over.
What if the owl meant not knitting wool and not crude wool but wool cloth? In that case wool is sold by the meter, isn't it?
Why is purchase wrong here? I used " How many meters of wool do we purchase"
No, you can't use that word order. You may hear "Quanti metri compriamo di lana?" which is used in spoken language to empasize "lana". I can't think of any other possible orders.
What's wrong with 'How many metres of wool do we buy?' If it's that I used the English spelling of metres rather than the American meters, I would remind you that Americans have no idea what a metre is as they still use Imperial measure. And if that really is the reason, Duolingo is being unnecessarily pedantic!
I wrote 'are we buying'; to my mind, that is just as correct as 'do we buy', and actually sounds better in conversational English. What do others think?
All dimensions must be written in singular (international SI-units). In my oppinion you must be written "metro" and meter. or is it not usually in Italy of England?
The SI fixes the name of the units and their abbreviation (for instance, in Italy we used "Volta" for the potential difference (from the name of the inventor of battery) and now the official name is "Volt". SI gives the abbreviation (m not followed by a point, for instance). Nowhere SI says that 2 meterS (or 2 metri) is wrong!
Why is it "di" lana instead of "da"? Is it because of metri? I thought the ending would be the same as the subject