I was going to add this to the reduplication thread but I think it belongs on its own. Part of the question is whether it's reduplication or something else.

Sentences like:

Li eniris en la ĉambron. Ŝi elsaltis el la skatolo.

Do the en- and el- preceding the verb add anything but emphasis? I don't think they're grammatically required. They both occur again after the verb as prepositions, making the prefixed occurences a sort of reduplication (or is it?). Would there be any change in meaning, as opposed to emphasis, to say:

Li iris en la ĉambron. Ŝi saltis el la skatolo.

That's not really reduplication, that's just affixation (because no letters are copied from the stem or the root or any other part of the main word to make the prefix), but you're right that they're kind of redundant (or pleonastic). I don't think you absolutely need the prefixes when you also have the prepositions, but I think the concept of using an identical prefix and preposition at the same time came from Latin where it's very normal (although Latin has more of a case system, so the prepositions aren't always used, though they usually are). I don't even think they add emphasis to be honest, it's just a kind of grammatical nicety, matching them both up (so in that sense it's duplication, though I wouldn't call it reduplication, which technically has a slightly narrower definition in linguistics). A bit like kaj... kaj. Saying kaj la hundo kaj la kato doesn't really add anything more than just saying la hundo kaj la kato, but it looks nice!

So I don't think there'd be a change of meaning between the first and the second sentences, but I think the first sentences would just be more idiomatic and natural to Esperanto; I'm prepared for other people to argue otherwise though.

Also note that those verbs could be used intransitively without a corresponding preposition as well. For example, mi eksaltis pro timo! Or just, mi eksaltis.

Bruso:I was going to add this to the reduplication thread but I think it belongs on its own. Part of the question is whether it's reduplication or something else.

Sentences like:

Li eniris en la ĉambron. Ŝi elsaltis el la skatolo.

Do the en- and el- preceding the verb add anything but emphasis? I don't think they're grammatically required. They both occur again after the verb as prepositions, making the prefixed occurences a sort of reduplication (or is it?). Would there be any change in meaning, as opposed to emphasis, to say:

Li iris en la ĉambron. Ŝi saltis el la skatolo.

There is a difference. In Polish we also use special prefixes which change meaning of words. For example, elsalti means that somebody or something jumps from inside to outside, e.g. Li elsaltis el aviadilo but Li saltis el la tria etagxo.

I see, so I think this means:
Elsalti el: Jump out of (a container of a sort)
Salti el: Jump from (from in or on something)

michaleo:
There is a difference. In Polish we also use special prefixes which change meaning of words. For example, elsalti means that somebody or something jumps from inside to outside, e.g. Li elsaltis el aviadilo but Li saltis el la tria etagxo.

I don't understand the difference between jumping from an aeroplane and from the third floor of a building. You're doing pretty much the same thing in either case, aren't you? In both cases you're jumping out of a structure (i.e. from inside to outside). Unless the third floor happens to be the roof of the building, but then you'd surely be jumping off [de] it rather than out of [el] it.

I could believe that people might be more likely to use one word than another in various circumstances by custom (especially in a natural language like Polish), but I can't understand any kind of rational rule behind it. (Perhaps that's just my ignorance or short-sightedness though! So feel free to correct me, if you think it is.) Then again I'm sure that's true of quite a few things in Esperanto that have a supposedly rational basis: I was actually reading an interesting academic article about that recently (here it is, if anyone wants to read -- bilingual, English and Esperanto).

jismith1989:I don't understand the difference between jumping from an aeroplane and from the third floor of a building. You're doing pretty much the same thing in either case, aren't you? In both cases you're jumping out of a structure (i.e. from inside to outside). Unless the third floor happens to be the roof of the building, but then you'd surely be jumping off [de] it rather than out of [el] it.

In my example, someone was jumping out of a box, which doesn't imply one way or another whether she ended up out-of-doors or indoors.

If there's a difference in Polish, that's interesting to know, but it doesn't necessarily apply in Esperanto (yes, I know Zamenhof spoke Polish. Among other languages).

Bruso:

jismith1989:I don't understand the difference between jumping from an aeroplane and from the third floor of a building. You're doing pretty much the same thing in either case, aren't you? In both cases you're jumping out of a structure (i.e. from inside to outside). Unless the third floor happens to be the roof of the building, but then you'd surely be jumping off [de] it rather than out of [el] it.

In my example, someone was jumping out of a box, which doesn't imply one way or another whether she ended up out-of-doors or indoors.

If there's a difference in Polish, that's interesting to know, but it doesn't necessarily apply in Esperanto (yes, I know Zamenhof spoke Polish. Among other languages).

I suppose you could say that jumping out of the box is going out of one thing and into another, but that seems [by definition] to apply to jumping out of anything, so I can't see how that helps us. I'd definitely also be interested to learn more about distinctions that Polish and other languages make, but like you say I don't think we can automatically apply them to Esperanto. But it's always worth knowing about how other languages do things.

Quite frankly, I want to know why you have women in boxes in the first place though!

I suppose you could say that jumping out of the box is going out of one thing and into another, but that seems [by definition] to apply to jumping out of anything, so I can't see how that helps us. I'd definitely also be interested to learn more about distinctions that Polish and other languages make, but like you say I don't think we can automatically apply them to Esperanto. But it's always worth knowing about how other languages do things.

Quite frankly, I want to know why you have women in boxes in the first place though!

Languages don't make distinctions but people using these languages. So if Esperanto has appropiate structures, each person can make such distinction as wants. The difference between two sentences which I wrote before is that Li saltis el la tria etaĝo tells about the height but not about the particular place which was probably a room or a balcony.

michaleo:Languages don't make distinctions but people using these languages. So if Esperanto has appropiate structures, each person can make such distinction as wants. The difference between two sentences which I wrote before is that Li saltis el la tria etaĝo tells about the height but not about the particular place which was probably a room or a balcony.

I see, so talking about the 3rd floor is less concrete/definite than the aeroplane, that's the difference. Interesting!

And yes, I think you're right. It's down to individual speakers or communities of speakers to work out appropriate [syntactic] structures for Esperanto. I think the differentiation that Polish makes, as you just explained to me, is quite a nuanced (and non-intuitive) one, so I'd be surprised if many other languages made that kind of distinction between one kind of verb and another based on how well defined the indirect object is (maybe other Slavic languages do though?). So it's something that you and others could use, and it wouldn't make understanding any harder, but I think that for lots of people who speak languages that don't make those kind of distinctions that would just add unnecessary complexity.

I see, so talking about the 3rd floor is less concrete/definite than the aeroplane, that's the difference. Interesting!

Not exactly. I rather mean that there is no indication of coming from inside to outside. But Li elsaltis el la tria etaĝo would also be good.