Pedagogical Query

[Koontz John E]

There hasn't been much activity of late on the Siouan list, but a small
cheerful fire is blazing amongst the Dhegihanists off to the side, with
discussions of what examples to use, and what order to introduce various
aspects of verbal inflection.  Perhaps some of this could be "read into"
the Siouan list if there is any interest outside the (small) subset of
Dhegihanists.  View pro or con should be addressed to me at
john.koontz at colorado.edu.

However, to bring up the substance of one of the issues, how to those of
you who've been exposed to such matters feel about teaching the full range
of forms of transitive paradigms?  A particular matter of concern are the
object marking forms.  I've been arguing that these forms are necessary in
lieu of the direct/indirect object forms in languages structured like
standard European ones.  You trade the effort in learning object pronoun
lists for one in learning additional verb forms.  I also argue that as the
forms in question are the same as the stative paradigm when the subject is
third person, there's not much real additional effort involved in learning
them.  I do admit that first/inclusive <=> second combinations are a
significant addition and need to be introduced carefully.  But I'm afraid
that most of the rest of the discussants, including all those with any
teaching experience, seem to feel that the full range of forms should be
avoided as long as possible, perhaps even into the second year.

Has anyone thought about this in connection with say, Dakota, Crow, or
Hochank efforts?