Hvort sem ég tek samloku eða salat með í vinnuna, vil ég alltaf hafa papriku með.

Hvort sem ... eða ... is the Icelandic pattern for whether ... or ....

In this sentence:

• Hvort sem ég tek samloku eða salat með í vinnuna
• literally: Whether I take a sandwich or salad to work

It introduces two alternatives, and the main clause tells you that the result is the same in either case:

• vil ég alltaf hafa papriku með
• I always want to have pepper/bell pepper with it

So the structure is:

• hvort sem = whether
• first option
• eða = or
• second option

This is a very common pattern in Icelandic.

No, hvort sem does not automatically require the subjunctive.

Here, tek is the present indicative of taka:

• ég tek = I take

That is normal here, because the sentence is talking about a real, ordinary choice: sandwich or salad. Icelandic often uses the indicative in this kind of whether ... or ... sentence.

So:

• hvort sem ég tek ... eða ... = whether I take ... or ...

There is nothing unusual about tek here.

Both nouns are objects of tek, so both are in the accusative singular. The difference is just that the nouns decline differently.

• samloka → accusative singular samloku
• salat → accusative singular salat

So:

• ég tek samloku = I take a sandwich
• ég tek salat = I take a salad

For salat, the nominative and accusative singular look the same. For samloka, the accusative has a different ending.

Here með means something like along or with me.

So:

• taka með = take along, take with you

In this sentence:

• ég tek samloku eða salat með í vinnuna
• = I take a sandwich or salad along to work

This með is not functioning like English with followed by a noun. It is more like a particle or adverb that belongs with the verb taka.

You can think of it as:

• taka ... með = take ... along

This is the common Icelandic movement-vs-location contrast.

• í + accusative often means movement into/to
• í + dative often means location in

So:

• í vinnuna = to work
• í vinnunni = at work / in the workplace

In the sentence, the food is being taken to work, so the accusative is used:

• með í vinnuna = along to work

If you were talking about being at work, you would expect í vinnunni instead.

This second með works similarly to the first one: it means along, included, or with it.

• hafa með = have along, have with you, include

So:

• vil ég alltaf hafa papriku með
• = I always want to have pepper/bell pepper with it

English often makes the object explicit with with it, but Icelandic can leave that understood from context. The idea is that the pepper is included with the meal.

So the two með words are not accidental repetition. They belong to two different verb phrases:

• taka ... með = take along
• hafa ... með = have/include along with it

This is because Icelandic is a verb-second language in main clauses.

After the initial subordinate clause:

• Hvort sem ég tek samloku eða salat með í vinnuna

the main clause begins, and the finite verb comes first:

• vil ég alltaf hafa papriku með

So the order is:

1. initial clause
2. finite verb
3. subject

That is why you get:

• ..., vil ég ...

rather than:

• ..., ég vil ...

This is very normal Icelandic word order.

Because papriku is the accusative singular of paprika.

• nominative: paprika
• accusative: papriku

Here it is the direct object of hafa:

• hafa papriku með = have pepper/bell pepper with you / included

So the accusative is expected.

In everyday Icelandic, paprika often means bell pepper, not just the powdered spice.

In this lunch context, papriku most likely means bell pepper, probably as part of the food, for example slices of red or yellow pepper.

If someone specifically means the spice, they may say something clearer such as paprikuduft.

So here the most natural interpretation is probably bell pepper.

Icelandic does not use an independent indefinite article like English a/an.

So:

• samloku can mean a sandwich
• salat can mean a salad
• papriku can mean pepper/bell pepper

That is perfectly normal.

As for the, Icelandic usually expresses that with a suffixed article attached to the noun, for example a form like -ið, -an, -in, depending on the noun. But here the nouns are indefinite and general, so no definite article is used.

The sentence is talking about the speaker’s usual preference in general, not a specific sandwich, salad, or pepper already identified.

Alltaf means always, and here it modifies the main idea:

• vil ég alltaf hafa papriku með
• = I always want to have pepper with it

So it tells you that this is a consistent preference, regardless of whether the speaker takes a sandwich or a salad.

The logic is:

• sandwich or salad — it does not matter
• in both cases, the speaker always wants pepper with it

You could translate it literally in that direction, but it would sound unnatural in English.

The Icelandic með in both places is idiomatic:

• taka ... með í vinnuna = take ... along to work
• hafa ... með = have ... with it / included / along

A natural English translation would usually be something like:

• Whether I take a sandwich or a salad to work, I always want to have bell pepper with it.

So yes, the literal meaning involves with/along, but the best English translation usually makes that sound more natural.