Hmm. I wonder how confused the original poster is by this stage, interesting though it is to read the intelligent responses which have followed. I am no great photographer and certainly not a professional. Although the original question is about lens choices the discussion has rapidly broadened. My own experience may be illustrative.
About 10 years go I found myself deciding to buy a decent SLR having only used P&S's for about 20 years (prior to that I had been using an old Zenith with a 50mm lens - a real people's camera: that's what I call discipline...) Fatigue caused by working with computers and associated technology caused me to react by buying a totally manual camera - a Nikon FM2n: on balance a mistake, although I'm still fond of the camera. To accompany it I bought (second hand and not at that time yet particularly cheaply!) a 20mm Nikkor, a 28-70 Tamron zoom and an 80-200 F4 Nikkor. However the limitations of the totally manual system became apparent pretty quickly, because quick it wasn't - which was often a significant limitation. However, having read up on basic photographic principles this system forced me to learn a lot, even though my results were generally underwhelming, even to me.
I fell into a similar trap a year ago when I bought a D200, heavily influenced by its capacity to use my existing AIS lenses. However comparing their performance to the two modest new A/F lenses that I bought at the same time I can honestly say that I can see little difference in real-world performance. My 50mm 1.8 AIS gives nice results, although I hardly use it. On balance I have learned vastly more about getting decent results since buying DSLR.
BTW I'd say that the comments about lens changing and dusty sensors as a factor to consider, are spot on!
Recently some friends who are financially challenged asked me about learning photography (always ask an expert...) and I initially advised taking the same approach as I had (which is what I believe most photographic college courses require). Paradoxically, this is a good route - but primarily for those who can afford to waste a lot of money on stock and processing. In the final analysis you need to take a lot of photographs to advance your skills, irrespective of the medium used. And film really weighs heavily against this, particularly since for many people the viewing and distribution medium for their snaps always entails computer/email/web to some degree. The idea that "discipline" is the key value associated with using prime lenses and/or film and/or manual equipment is totally at odds with the requirement to get a lot of practise. I discount darkroom skills because I can't imagine too many people without an already overwhelming committment to photography would ever bother to learn them. There is definitely an ascetic as much as an aesthetic component to this position!
Assuming a useable computer is available I'd advise buying a Nikon D40 (resolution limitations notwithstanding) with its kit lens (there may be many good second hand alternatives too) and then adding whatever primes or venerable zooms are available second-hand at bargain prices, as and when.
But what do I know?