Við höfum verið að afrita gömul skjöl og líma textann í nýtt skjal.

This is a very common Icelandic way to express an ongoing action that started in the past and is still relevant now.

It breaks down like this:

• við höfum = we have
• verið = the form of vera used in the perfect
• að afrita = copying / to copy

So hafa verið að + infinitive often works a lot like English have been + -ing.

In this sentence:

• Við höfum verið að afrita... = We have been copying...

It is not a word-for-word match to English grammar, but the overall meaning is very similar.

Here að is part of the construction vera að + infinitive, which often expresses that something is in progress.

For example:

• Ég er að lesa. = I am reading.
• Við höfum verið að afrita. = We have been copying.

So the að here is not the ordinary infinitive marker in the same way English to works everywhere. It belongs to this verbal pattern.

Because the two infinitives are coordinated:

• að afrita gömul skjöl og líma textann í nýtt skjal

Once að has been used with the first infinitive, Icelandic often leaves it out before the second one when the structure is shared.

So this means:

• að afrita ... og líma ... = to copy ... and paste ...

You could think of the að as applying to both verbs.

Verið is the form of vera used with hafa to make the perfect.

So in:

• við höfum verið

it corresponds to we have been.

A useful thing to remember is that after hafa, this form does not change to match the subject. So whether the subject is singular or plural, you still get verið.

Because it is the object of afrita.

• skjöl is the plural of skjal (document)
• gömul is the adjective old, agreeing with skjöl

Here the phrase means old documents.

Since afrita takes a direct object, you expect the object case here. With skjöl, the neuter plural nominative and accusative look the same, so the form is skjöl either way. The adjective gömul also matches neuter plural.

Because textann means the text.

The noun is:

• texti = text

Its accusative singular is:

• texta = text
• textann = the text

So the ending -nn is the attached definite article, giving the meaning the.

In the sentence, textann is the object of líma, so it appears in the accusative definite form.

Because skjal is a neuter noun, and the adjective has to agree with it.

• skjal = document (neuter)
• nýr / ný / nýtt = new

So with a neuter singular noun, you get:

• nýtt skjal = a new document

The adjective nýtt is the neuter singular form that matches skjal.

Because í can take either accusative or dative, depending on meaning.

A very useful rule is:

• motion into something -> accusative
• location in something -> dative

Here the idea is pasting the text into a new document, so there is movement or transfer into it. That is why Icelandic uses the accusative:

• í nýtt skjal

If you were talking about something already located inside a document, you would expect dative instead:

• í nýju skjali = in a new document

Because the sentence talks about copying old documents but pasting the text into a new document.

So:

• gömul skjöl = old documents (plural)
• nýtt skjal = a new document (singular)

This is a meaning difference, not just a grammar difference. The sentence describes material coming from more than one old document and being put into one new document.

Yes. Líma literally has the idea of gluing, but in modern Icelandic it is also used for computer actions like paste.

So in a digital context:

• afrita = copy
• líma = paste

This is exactly the same kind of extension English has, where paste originally had a physical meaning but is now also used on computers.

Often yes, especially in computer or document contexts, but its range can depend on context.

In a sentence like this, afrita very naturally means to copy. Depending on the situation, it can involve:

• copying text
• copying documents
• reproducing something from an original

So here afrita gömul skjöl is a natural way to say copy old documents.

Because the sentence is talking about something that has been going on over a stretch of time leading up to now, not just something happening right this moment.

Compare:

• Við erum að afrita skjöl. = We are copying documents.
• Við höfum verið að afrita skjöl. = We have been copying documents.

So erum að is more like English are doing, while höfum verið að is more like have been doing.

It could, depending on style and context, but the sentence as written is very natural.

The structure is:

• afrita gömul skjöl = copy old documents
• og líma textann í nýtt skjal = and paste the text into a new document

The second verb has its own object, textann, so there is no need for an extra pronoun. Icelandic, like English, often keeps this kind of coordination compact when the meaning is clear.