gaussalgo/Canard_Wiki-augmented huggingface dataset:
Indigenous languages of the Americas

Context: Although both North and Central America are very diverse areas, South America has a linguistic diversity rivalled by only a few other places in the world with approximately 350 languages still spoken and an estimated 1,500 languages at first European contact. The situation of language documentation and classification into genetic families is not as advanced as in North America (which is relatively well studied in many areas). Kaufman (1994: 46) gives the following appraisal:  Since the mid 1950s, the amount of published material on SA [South America] has been gradually growing, but even so, the number of researchers is far smaller than the growing number of linguistic communities whose speech should be documented. Given the current employment opportunities, it is not likely that the number of specialists in SA Indian languages will increase fast enough to document most of the surviving SA languages before they go out of use, as most of them unavoidably will. More work languishes in personal files than is published, but this is a standard problem.  It is fair to say that SA and New Guinea are linguistically the poorest documented parts of the world. However, in the early 1960s fairly systematic efforts were launched in Papua New Guinea, and that area - much smaller than SA, to be sure - is in general much better documented than any part of indigenous SA of comparable size.  As a result, many relationships between languages and language families have not been determined and some of those relationships that have been proposed are on somewhat shaky ground.  The list of language families, isolates, and unclassified languages below is a rather conservative one based on Campbell (1997). Many of the proposed (and often speculative) groupings of families can be seen in Campbell (1997), Gordon (2005), Kaufman (1990, 1994), Key (1979), Loukotka (1968), and in the Language stock proposals section below. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Can you give me a little more information on the Indigenous languages of South America and the Caribbean?
Answer: South America has a linguistic diversity rivalled by only a few other places in the world with approximately 350 languages still spoken
Indigenous languages of the Americas

Context: Although both North and Central America are very diverse areas, South America has a linguistic diversity rivalled by only a few other places in the world with approximately 350 languages still spoken and an estimated 1,500 languages at first European contact. The situation of language documentation and classification into genetic families is not as advanced as in North America (which is relatively well studied in many areas). Kaufman (1994: 46) gives the following appraisal:  Since the mid 1950s, the amount of published material on SA [South America] has been gradually growing, but even so, the number of researchers is far smaller than the growing number of linguistic communities whose speech should be documented. Given the current employment opportunities, it is not likely that the number of specialists in SA Indian languages will increase fast enough to document most of the surviving SA languages before they go out of use, as most of them unavoidably will. More work languishes in personal files than is published, but this is a standard problem.  It is fair to say that SA and New Guinea are linguistically the poorest documented parts of the world. However, in the early 1960s fairly systematic efforts were launched in Papua New Guinea, and that area - much smaller than SA, to be sure - is in general much better documented than any part of indigenous SA of comparable size.  As a result, many relationships between languages and language families have not been determined and some of those relationships that have been proposed are on somewhat shaky ground.  The list of language families, isolates, and unclassified languages below is a rather conservative one based on Campbell (1997). Many of the proposed (and often speculative) groupings of families can be seen in Campbell (1997), Gordon (2005), Kaufman (1990, 1994), Key (1979), Loukotka (1968), and in the Language stock proposals section below. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What are some of the Indigenous languages of the Americas, South America and the Caribbean?
Answer: it is not likely that the number of specialists in SA Indian languages will increase fast enough to document most of the surviving SA languages
Indigenous languages of the Americas

Context: Although both North and Central America are very diverse areas, South America has a linguistic diversity rivalled by only a few other places in the world with approximately 350 languages still spoken and an estimated 1,500 languages at first European contact. The situation of language documentation and classification into genetic families is not as advanced as in North America (which is relatively well studied in many areas). Kaufman (1994: 46) gives the following appraisal:  Since the mid 1950s, the amount of published material on SA [South America] has been gradually growing, but even so, the number of researchers is far smaller than the growing number of linguistic communities whose speech should be documented. Given the current employment opportunities, it is not likely that the number of specialists in SA Indian languages will increase fast enough to document most of the surviving SA languages before they go out of use, as most of them unavoidably will. More work languishes in personal files than is published, but this is a standard problem.  It is fair to say that SA and New Guinea are linguistically the poorest documented parts of the world. However, in the early 1960s fairly systematic efforts were launched in Papua New Guinea, and that area - much smaller than SA, to be sure - is in general much better documented than any part of indigenous SA of comparable size.  As a result, many relationships between languages and language families have not been determined and some of those relationships that have been proposed are on somewhat shaky ground.  The list of language families, isolates, and unclassified languages below is a rather conservative one based on Campbell (1997). Many of the proposed (and often speculative) groupings of families can be seen in Campbell (1997), Gordon (2005), Kaufman (1990, 1994), Key (1979), Loukotka (1968), and in the Language stock proposals section below. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What were some of the popular languages being spoken in South America?
Answer: many relationships between languages and language families have not been determined
Indigenous languages of the Americas

Context: Although both North and Central America are very diverse areas, South America has a linguistic diversity rivalled by only a few other places in the world with approximately 350 languages still spoken and an estimated 1,500 languages at first European contact. The situation of language documentation and classification into genetic families is not as advanced as in North America (which is relatively well studied in many areas). Kaufman (1994: 46) gives the following appraisal:  Since the mid 1950s, the amount of published material on SA [South America] has been gradually growing, but even so, the number of researchers is far smaller than the growing number of linguistic communities whose speech should be documented. Given the current employment opportunities, it is not likely that the number of specialists in SA Indian languages will increase fast enough to document most of the surviving SA languages before they go out of use, as most of them unavoidably will. More work languishes in personal files than is published, but this is a standard problem.  It is fair to say that SA and New Guinea are linguistically the poorest documented parts of the world. However, in the early 1960s fairly systematic efforts were launched in Papua New Guinea, and that area - much smaller than SA, to be sure - is in general much better documented than any part of indigenous SA of comparable size.  As a result, many relationships between languages and language families have not been determined and some of those relationships that have been proposed are on somewhat shaky ground.  The list of language families, isolates, and unclassified languages below is a rather conservative one based on Campbell (1997). Many of the proposed (and often speculative) groupings of families can be seen in Campbell (1997), Gordon (2005), Kaufman (1990, 1994), Key (1979), Loukotka (1968), and in the Language stock proposals section below. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did the Indigenous languages of the Americas, South America and the Caribbean have a positive outlook or outcome?
Answer: some of those relationships that have been proposed are on somewhat shaky ground.
Indigenous languages of the Americas

Context: Although both North and Central America are very diverse areas, South America has a linguistic diversity rivalled by only a few other places in the world with approximately 350 languages still spoken and an estimated 1,500 languages at first European contact. The situation of language documentation and classification into genetic families is not as advanced as in North America (which is relatively well studied in many areas). Kaufman (1994: 46) gives the following appraisal:  Since the mid 1950s, the amount of published material on SA [South America] has been gradually growing, but even so, the number of researchers is far smaller than the growing number of linguistic communities whose speech should be documented. Given the current employment opportunities, it is not likely that the number of specialists in SA Indian languages will increase fast enough to document most of the surviving SA languages before they go out of use, as most of them unavoidably will. More work languishes in personal files than is published, but this is a standard problem.  It is fair to say that SA and New Guinea are linguistically the poorest documented parts of the world. However, in the early 1960s fairly systematic efforts were launched in Papua New Guinea, and that area - much smaller than SA, to be sure - is in general much better documented than any part of indigenous SA of comparable size.  As a result, many relationships between languages and language families have not been determined and some of those relationships that have been proposed are on somewhat shaky ground.  The list of language families, isolates, and unclassified languages below is a rather conservative one based on Campbell (1997). Many of the proposed (and often speculative) groupings of families can be seen in Campbell (1997), Gordon (2005), Kaufman (1990, 1994), Key (1979), Loukotka (1968), and in the Language stock proposals section below. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What were indigenous languages that did not have a positive outlook in the Americas, South Americas and Caribbean?
Answer: Campbell (1997
Indigenous languages of the Americas

Context: Although both North and Central America are very diverse areas, South America has a linguistic diversity rivalled by only a few other places in the world with approximately 350 languages still spoken and an estimated 1,500 languages at first European contact. The situation of language documentation and classification into genetic families is not as advanced as in North America (which is relatively well studied in many areas). Kaufman (1994: 46) gives the following appraisal:  Since the mid 1950s, the amount of published material on SA [South America] has been gradually growing, but even so, the number of researchers is far smaller than the growing number of linguistic communities whose speech should be documented. Given the current employment opportunities, it is not likely that the number of specialists in SA Indian languages will increase fast enough to document most of the surviving SA languages before they go out of use, as most of them unavoidably will. More work languishes in personal files than is published, but this is a standard problem.  It is fair to say that SA and New Guinea are linguistically the poorest documented parts of the world. However, in the early 1960s fairly systematic efforts were launched in Papua New Guinea, and that area - much smaller than SA, to be sure - is in general much better documented than any part of indigenous SA of comparable size.  As a result, many relationships between languages and language families have not been determined and some of those relationships that have been proposed are on somewhat shaky ground.  The list of language families, isolates, and unclassified languages below is a rather conservative one based on Campbell (1997). Many of the proposed (and often speculative) groupings of families can be seen in Campbell (1997), Gordon (2005), Kaufman (1990, 1994), Key (1979), Loukotka (1968), and in the Language stock proposals section below. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did the diversity look like with South America?
Answer: South America has a linguistic diversity rivalled by only a few other places in the world
Indigenous languages of the Americas

Context: Although both North and Central America are very diverse areas, South America has a linguistic diversity rivalled by only a few other places in the world with approximately 350 languages still spoken and an estimated 1,500 languages at first European contact. The situation of language documentation and classification into genetic families is not as advanced as in North America (which is relatively well studied in many areas). Kaufman (1994: 46) gives the following appraisal:  Since the mid 1950s, the amount of published material on SA [South America] has been gradually growing, but even so, the number of researchers is far smaller than the growing number of linguistic communities whose speech should be documented. Given the current employment opportunities, it is not likely that the number of specialists in SA Indian languages will increase fast enough to document most of the surviving SA languages before they go out of use, as most of them unavoidably will. More work languishes in personal files than is published, but this is a standard problem.  It is fair to say that SA and New Guinea are linguistically the poorest documented parts of the world. However, in the early 1960s fairly systematic efforts were launched in Papua New Guinea, and that area - much smaller than SA, to be sure - is in general much better documented than any part of indigenous SA of comparable size.  As a result, many relationships between languages and language families have not been determined and some of those relationships that have been proposed are on somewhat shaky ground.  The list of language families, isolates, and unclassified languages below is a rather conservative one based on Campbell (1997). Many of the proposed (and often speculative) groupings of families can be seen in Campbell (1997), Gordon (2005), Kaufman (1990, 1994), Key (1979), Loukotka (1968), and in the Language stock proposals section below. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Overall, what was the outcome of South American's linguistic diversity?
Answer: SA Indian languages will increase fast enough to document most of the surviving SA languages before they go out of use, as most of them unavoidably will.
Hugh Trevor-Roper

Context: A notable thesis propagated by Trevor-Roper was the "general crisis of the 17th century". He argued that the middle years of the 17th century in Western Europe saw a widespread break-down in politics, economics and society caused by demographic, social, religious, economic and political problems. In this "general crisis," various events, such as the English Civil War, the Fronde in France, the climax of the Thirty Years' War in Germany, troubles in the Netherlands, and revolts against the Spanish Crown in Portugal, Naples and Catalonia, were all manifestations of the same problems. The most important causes of the "general crisis" in Trevor-Roper's opinion were conflicts between "Court" and "Country"; that is between the increasingly powerful centralizing, bureaucratic, sovereign princely states, represented by the Court, and the traditional, regional, land-based aristocracy and gentry, representing the country. In addition, he said that the religious and intellectual changes introduced by the Reformation and the Renaissance were important secondary causes of the "general crisis."  The "general crisis" thesis generated controversy between supporters of this theory, and those, such as the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, who agreed with him that there was a "general crisis," but saw the problems of 17th century Europe as more economic in origin than Trevor-Roper would allow. A third faction denied that there was any "general crisis," for example the Dutch historian Ivo Schoffer, the Danish historian Niels Steengsgaard, and the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya. Trevor-Roper's "general crisis" thesis provoked much discussion, and led experts in 17th century history such as Roland Mousnier, J. H. Elliott, Lawrence Stone, E. H. Kossmann, Eric Hobsbawm and J. H. Hexter to become advocates of the pros and cons of the theory.  At times the discussion became quite heated; the Italian Marxist historian Rosario Villari, speaking of the work of Trevor-Roper and Mousnier, claimed that: "The hypothesis of imbalance between bureaucratic expansion and the needs of the state is too vague to be plausible, and rests on inflated rhetoric, typical of a certain type of political conservative, rather than on effective analysis." Villari accused Trevor-Roper of downgrading the importance of what Villari called the English Revolution (the usual Marxist term for the English Civil War), and insisted that the "general crisis" was part of a Europe-wide revolutionary movement. Another Marxist critic of Trevor-Roper the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya attacked the concept of a conflict between "Court" and "Country" as fiction, arguing there was no "general crisis;" instead she maintained that the so-called "general crisis" was merely the emergence of capitalism. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What was the General crisis of the 17th century?
Answer: a widespread break-down in politics, economics and society caused by demographic, social, religious, economic and political problems.
Hugh Trevor-Roper

Context: A notable thesis propagated by Trevor-Roper was the "general crisis of the 17th century". He argued that the middle years of the 17th century in Western Europe saw a widespread break-down in politics, economics and society caused by demographic, social, religious, economic and political problems. In this "general crisis," various events, such as the English Civil War, the Fronde in France, the climax of the Thirty Years' War in Germany, troubles in the Netherlands, and revolts against the Spanish Crown in Portugal, Naples and Catalonia, were all manifestations of the same problems. The most important causes of the "general crisis" in Trevor-Roper's opinion were conflicts between "Court" and "Country"; that is between the increasingly powerful centralizing, bureaucratic, sovereign princely states, represented by the Court, and the traditional, regional, land-based aristocracy and gentry, representing the country. In addition, he said that the religious and intellectual changes introduced by the Reformation and the Renaissance were important secondary causes of the "general crisis."  The "general crisis" thesis generated controversy between supporters of this theory, and those, such as the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, who agreed with him that there was a "general crisis," but saw the problems of 17th century Europe as more economic in origin than Trevor-Roper would allow. A third faction denied that there was any "general crisis," for example the Dutch historian Ivo Schoffer, the Danish historian Niels Steengsgaard, and the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya. Trevor-Roper's "general crisis" thesis provoked much discussion, and led experts in 17th century history such as Roland Mousnier, J. H. Elliott, Lawrence Stone, E. H. Kossmann, Eric Hobsbawm and J. H. Hexter to become advocates of the pros and cons of the theory.  At times the discussion became quite heated; the Italian Marxist historian Rosario Villari, speaking of the work of Trevor-Roper and Mousnier, claimed that: "The hypothesis of imbalance between bureaucratic expansion and the needs of the state is too vague to be plausible, and rests on inflated rhetoric, typical of a certain type of political conservative, rather than on effective analysis." Villari accused Trevor-Roper of downgrading the importance of what Villari called the English Revolution (the usual Marxist term for the English Civil War), and insisted that the "general crisis" was part of a Europe-wide revolutionary movement. Another Marxist critic of Trevor-Roper the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya attacked the concept of a conflict between "Court" and "Country" as fiction, arguing there was no "general crisis;" instead she maintained that the so-called "general crisis" was merely the emergence of capitalism. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What was the cause of the General crisis of the 17th century?
Answer: religious and intellectual changes introduced by the Reformation and the Renaissance
Hugh Trevor-Roper

Context: A notable thesis propagated by Trevor-Roper was the "general crisis of the 17th century". He argued that the middle years of the 17th century in Western Europe saw a widespread break-down in politics, economics and society caused by demographic, social, religious, economic and political problems. In this "general crisis," various events, such as the English Civil War, the Fronde in France, the climax of the Thirty Years' War in Germany, troubles in the Netherlands, and revolts against the Spanish Crown in Portugal, Naples and Catalonia, were all manifestations of the same problems. The most important causes of the "general crisis" in Trevor-Roper's opinion were conflicts between "Court" and "Country"; that is between the increasingly powerful centralizing, bureaucratic, sovereign princely states, represented by the Court, and the traditional, regional, land-based aristocracy and gentry, representing the country. In addition, he said that the religious and intellectual changes introduced by the Reformation and the Renaissance were important secondary causes of the "general crisis."  The "general crisis" thesis generated controversy between supporters of this theory, and those, such as the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, who agreed with him that there was a "general crisis," but saw the problems of 17th century Europe as more economic in origin than Trevor-Roper would allow. A third faction denied that there was any "general crisis," for example the Dutch historian Ivo Schoffer, the Danish historian Niels Steengsgaard, and the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya. Trevor-Roper's "general crisis" thesis provoked much discussion, and led experts in 17th century history such as Roland Mousnier, J. H. Elliott, Lawrence Stone, E. H. Kossmann, Eric Hobsbawm and J. H. Hexter to become advocates of the pros and cons of the theory.  At times the discussion became quite heated; the Italian Marxist historian Rosario Villari, speaking of the work of Trevor-Roper and Mousnier, claimed that: "The hypothesis of imbalance between bureaucratic expansion and the needs of the state is too vague to be plausible, and rests on inflated rhetoric, typical of a certain type of political conservative, rather than on effective analysis." Villari accused Trevor-Roper of downgrading the importance of what Villari called the English Revolution (the usual Marxist term for the English Civil War), and insisted that the "general crisis" was part of a Europe-wide revolutionary movement. Another Marxist critic of Trevor-Roper the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya attacked the concept of a conflict between "Court" and "Country" as fiction, arguing there was no "general crisis;" instead she maintained that the so-called "general crisis" was merely the emergence of capitalism. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did everyone agree there was actually a General crisis?
Answer: The "general crisis" thesis generated controversy
Hugh Trevor-Roper

Context: A notable thesis propagated by Trevor-Roper was the "general crisis of the 17th century". He argued that the middle years of the 17th century in Western Europe saw a widespread break-down in politics, economics and society caused by demographic, social, religious, economic and political problems. In this "general crisis," various events, such as the English Civil War, the Fronde in France, the climax of the Thirty Years' War in Germany, troubles in the Netherlands, and revolts against the Spanish Crown in Portugal, Naples and Catalonia, were all manifestations of the same problems. The most important causes of the "general crisis" in Trevor-Roper's opinion were conflicts between "Court" and "Country"; that is between the increasingly powerful centralizing, bureaucratic, sovereign princely states, represented by the Court, and the traditional, regional, land-based aristocracy and gentry, representing the country. In addition, he said that the religious and intellectual changes introduced by the Reformation and the Renaissance were important secondary causes of the "general crisis."  The "general crisis" thesis generated controversy between supporters of this theory, and those, such as the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, who agreed with him that there was a "general crisis," but saw the problems of 17th century Europe as more economic in origin than Trevor-Roper would allow. A third faction denied that there was any "general crisis," for example the Dutch historian Ivo Schoffer, the Danish historian Niels Steengsgaard, and the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya. Trevor-Roper's "general crisis" thesis provoked much discussion, and led experts in 17th century history such as Roland Mousnier, J. H. Elliott, Lawrence Stone, E. H. Kossmann, Eric Hobsbawm and J. H. Hexter to become advocates of the pros and cons of the theory.  At times the discussion became quite heated; the Italian Marxist historian Rosario Villari, speaking of the work of Trevor-Roper and Mousnier, claimed that: "The hypothesis of imbalance between bureaucratic expansion and the needs of the state is too vague to be plausible, and rests on inflated rhetoric, typical of a certain type of political conservative, rather than on effective analysis." Villari accused Trevor-Roper of downgrading the importance of what Villari called the English Revolution (the usual Marxist term for the English Civil War), and insisted that the "general crisis" was part of a Europe-wide revolutionary movement. Another Marxist critic of Trevor-Roper the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya attacked the concept of a conflict between "Court" and "Country" as fiction, arguing there was no "general crisis;" instead she maintained that the so-called "general crisis" was merely the emergence of capitalism. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did people agree with Trevor-Roper?
Answer: Eric Hobsbawm, who agreed with him that there was a "general crisis,"
Hugh Trevor-Roper

Context: A notable thesis propagated by Trevor-Roper was the "general crisis of the 17th century". He argued that the middle years of the 17th century in Western Europe saw a widespread break-down in politics, economics and society caused by demographic, social, religious, economic and political problems. In this "general crisis," various events, such as the English Civil War, the Fronde in France, the climax of the Thirty Years' War in Germany, troubles in the Netherlands, and revolts against the Spanish Crown in Portugal, Naples and Catalonia, were all manifestations of the same problems. The most important causes of the "general crisis" in Trevor-Roper's opinion were conflicts between "Court" and "Country"; that is between the increasingly powerful centralizing, bureaucratic, sovereign princely states, represented by the Court, and the traditional, regional, land-based aristocracy and gentry, representing the country. In addition, he said that the religious and intellectual changes introduced by the Reformation and the Renaissance were important secondary causes of the "general crisis."  The "general crisis" thesis generated controversy between supporters of this theory, and those, such as the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, who agreed with him that there was a "general crisis," but saw the problems of 17th century Europe as more economic in origin than Trevor-Roper would allow. A third faction denied that there was any "general crisis," for example the Dutch historian Ivo Schoffer, the Danish historian Niels Steengsgaard, and the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya. Trevor-Roper's "general crisis" thesis provoked much discussion, and led experts in 17th century history such as Roland Mousnier, J. H. Elliott, Lawrence Stone, E. H. Kossmann, Eric Hobsbawm and J. H. Hexter to become advocates of the pros and cons of the theory.  At times the discussion became quite heated; the Italian Marxist historian Rosario Villari, speaking of the work of Trevor-Roper and Mousnier, claimed that: "The hypothesis of imbalance between bureaucratic expansion and the needs of the state is too vague to be plausible, and rests on inflated rhetoric, typical of a certain type of political conservative, rather than on effective analysis." Villari accused Trevor-Roper of downgrading the importance of what Villari called the English Revolution (the usual Marxist term for the English Civil War), and insisted that the "general crisis" was part of a Europe-wide revolutionary movement. Another Marxist critic of Trevor-Roper the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya attacked the concept of a conflict between "Court" and "Country" as fiction, arguing there was no "general crisis;" instead she maintained that the so-called "general crisis" was merely the emergence of capitalism. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did Hobsbawm have any critics?
Answer: A third faction denied that there was any "general crisis," for example the Dutch historian Ivo Schoffer,
Hugh Trevor-Roper

Context: A notable thesis propagated by Trevor-Roper was the "general crisis of the 17th century". He argued that the middle years of the 17th century in Western Europe saw a widespread break-down in politics, economics and society caused by demographic, social, religious, economic and political problems. In this "general crisis," various events, such as the English Civil War, the Fronde in France, the climax of the Thirty Years' War in Germany, troubles in the Netherlands, and revolts against the Spanish Crown in Portugal, Naples and Catalonia, were all manifestations of the same problems. The most important causes of the "general crisis" in Trevor-Roper's opinion were conflicts between "Court" and "Country"; that is between the increasingly powerful centralizing, bureaucratic, sovereign princely states, represented by the Court, and the traditional, regional, land-based aristocracy and gentry, representing the country. In addition, he said that the religious and intellectual changes introduced by the Reformation and the Renaissance were important secondary causes of the "general crisis."  The "general crisis" thesis generated controversy between supporters of this theory, and those, such as the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, who agreed with him that there was a "general crisis," but saw the problems of 17th century Europe as more economic in origin than Trevor-Roper would allow. A third faction denied that there was any "general crisis," for example the Dutch historian Ivo Schoffer, the Danish historian Niels Steengsgaard, and the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya. Trevor-Roper's "general crisis" thesis provoked much discussion, and led experts in 17th century history such as Roland Mousnier, J. H. Elliott, Lawrence Stone, E. H. Kossmann, Eric Hobsbawm and J. H. Hexter to become advocates of the pros and cons of the theory.  At times the discussion became quite heated; the Italian Marxist historian Rosario Villari, speaking of the work of Trevor-Roper and Mousnier, claimed that: "The hypothesis of imbalance between bureaucratic expansion and the needs of the state is too vague to be plausible, and rests on inflated rhetoric, typical of a certain type of political conservative, rather than on effective analysis." Villari accused Trevor-Roper of downgrading the importance of what Villari called the English Revolution (the usual Marxist term for the English Civil War), and insisted that the "general crisis" was part of a Europe-wide revolutionary movement. Another Marxist critic of Trevor-Roper the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya attacked the concept of a conflict between "Court" and "Country" as fiction, arguing there was no "general crisis;" instead she maintained that the so-called "general crisis" was merely the emergence of capitalism. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Other than the General Crisis, Is there anything else important?
Answer: Trevor-Roper's "general crisis" thesis provoked much discussion, and led experts in 17th century history
Hugh Trevor-Roper

Context: A notable thesis propagated by Trevor-Roper was the "general crisis of the 17th century". He argued that the middle years of the 17th century in Western Europe saw a widespread break-down in politics, economics and society caused by demographic, social, religious, economic and political problems. In this "general crisis," various events, such as the English Civil War, the Fronde in France, the climax of the Thirty Years' War in Germany, troubles in the Netherlands, and revolts against the Spanish Crown in Portugal, Naples and Catalonia, were all manifestations of the same problems. The most important causes of the "general crisis" in Trevor-Roper's opinion were conflicts between "Court" and "Country"; that is between the increasingly powerful centralizing, bureaucratic, sovereign princely states, represented by the Court, and the traditional, regional, land-based aristocracy and gentry, representing the country. In addition, he said that the religious and intellectual changes introduced by the Reformation and the Renaissance were important secondary causes of the "general crisis."  The "general crisis" thesis generated controversy between supporters of this theory, and those, such as the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, who agreed with him that there was a "general crisis," but saw the problems of 17th century Europe as more economic in origin than Trevor-Roper would allow. A third faction denied that there was any "general crisis," for example the Dutch historian Ivo Schoffer, the Danish historian Niels Steengsgaard, and the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya. Trevor-Roper's "general crisis" thesis provoked much discussion, and led experts in 17th century history such as Roland Mousnier, J. H. Elliott, Lawrence Stone, E. H. Kossmann, Eric Hobsbawm and J. H. Hexter to become advocates of the pros and cons of the theory.  At times the discussion became quite heated; the Italian Marxist historian Rosario Villari, speaking of the work of Trevor-Roper and Mousnier, claimed that: "The hypothesis of imbalance between bureaucratic expansion and the needs of the state is too vague to be plausible, and rests on inflated rhetoric, typical of a certain type of political conservative, rather than on effective analysis." Villari accused Trevor-Roper of downgrading the importance of what Villari called the English Revolution (the usual Marxist term for the English Civil War), and insisted that the "general crisis" was part of a Europe-wide revolutionary movement. Another Marxist critic of Trevor-Roper the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya attacked the concept of a conflict between "Court" and "Country" as fiction, arguing there was no "general crisis;" instead she maintained that the so-called "general crisis" was merely the emergence of capitalism. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What experts did iTrevor provoke?
Answer: Roland Mousnier, J. H. Elliott, Lawrence Stone, E. H. Kossmann, Eric Hobsbawm and J. H. Hexter
Bert Bell

Context: Bell entered Penn in the fall of 1914 as an English major and joined Phi Kappa Sigma. In a rare occurrence for a sophomore, he became the starting quarterback for Penn's coach George H. Brooke. On the team, he also was as a defender, punter, and punt returner. After the team's 3-0 start, Bell temporarily shared possession of his quarterbacking duties until he subsequently reclaimed them later in the season, as Penn finished with a record of 3-5-2.  Prior to Penn's 1916 season, his mother died while he was en route to her bedside. Nevertheless, he started the first game for the Quakers under new coach Bob Folwell, but mixed results left him platooned for the rest of the season. Penn finished with a record of 7-2-1. However, the Quakers secured an invitation to the 1917 Rose Bowl against the Oregon Ducks. Although the best offensive gain for Penn during their 20-14 loss to Oregon was a 20-yard run by Bell, he was replaced late in the game at quarterback after throwing an interception.  In the 1917 season, Bell led Penn to a 9-2 record. Afterwards, he registered with a Mobile Hospital Unit of the US Army for World War I and was deployed to France in May 1918. As a result of his unit participating in hazardous duty, it received a congratulatory letter for bravery from General John J. Pershing, and Bell was promoted to first sergeant. After the war, Bell returned to the United States in March 1919. He returned to Penn as captain of the team in the fall and again performed erratically. The Quakers finished 1919 with a 6-2-1 record. Academically, his aversion to attending classes forced him to withdraw from Penn without a degree in early 1920. His collegiate days ended with his having been a borderline All-American, but this period of his life had proven that he "possessed the qualities of a leader." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did Bert Bell teach at Penn?
Answer: Bell entered Penn in the fall of 1914
Bert Bell

Context: Bell entered Penn in the fall of 1914 as an English major and joined Phi Kappa Sigma. In a rare occurrence for a sophomore, he became the starting quarterback for Penn's coach George H. Brooke. On the team, he also was as a defender, punter, and punt returner. After the team's 3-0 start, Bell temporarily shared possession of his quarterbacking duties until he subsequently reclaimed them later in the season, as Penn finished with a record of 3-5-2.  Prior to Penn's 1916 season, his mother died while he was en route to her bedside. Nevertheless, he started the first game for the Quakers under new coach Bob Folwell, but mixed results left him platooned for the rest of the season. Penn finished with a record of 7-2-1. However, the Quakers secured an invitation to the 1917 Rose Bowl against the Oregon Ducks. Although the best offensive gain for Penn during their 20-14 loss to Oregon was a 20-yard run by Bell, he was replaced late in the game at quarterback after throwing an interception.  In the 1917 season, Bell led Penn to a 9-2 record. Afterwards, he registered with a Mobile Hospital Unit of the US Army for World War I and was deployed to France in May 1918. As a result of his unit participating in hazardous duty, it received a congratulatory letter for bravery from General John J. Pershing, and Bell was promoted to first sergeant. After the war, Bell returned to the United States in March 1919. He returned to Penn as captain of the team in the fall and again performed erratically. The Quakers finished 1919 with a 6-2-1 record. Academically, his aversion to attending classes forced him to withdraw from Penn without a degree in early 1920. His collegiate days ended with his having been a borderline All-American, but this period of his life had proven that he "possessed the qualities of a leader." CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did Bert Bell coach or teach at University of Pennsylvania?
Answer: as an English major and joined Phi Kappa Sigma.
Bert Bell

Context: Bell entered Penn in the fall of 1914 as an English major and joined Phi Kappa Sigma. In a rare occurrence for a sophomore, he became the starting quarterback for Penn's coach George H. Brooke. On the team, he also was as a defender, punter, and punt returner. After the team's 3-0 start, Bell temporarily shared possession of his quarterbacking duties until he subsequently reclaimed them later in the season, as Penn finished with a record of 3-5-2.  Prior to Penn's 1916 season, his mother died while he was en route to her bedside. Nevertheless, he started the first game for the Quakers under new coach Bob Folwell, but mixed results left him platooned for the rest of the season. Penn finished with a record of 7-2-1. However, the Quakers secured an invitation to the 1917 Rose Bowl against the Oregon Ducks. Although the best offensive gain for Penn during their 20-14 loss to Oregon was a 20-yard run by Bell, he was replaced late in the game at quarterback after throwing an interception.  In the 1917 season, Bell led Penn to a 9-2 record. Afterwards, he registered with a Mobile Hospital Unit of the US Army for World War I and was deployed to France in May 1918. As a result of his unit participating in hazardous duty, it received a congratulatory letter for bravery from General John J. Pershing, and Bell was promoted to first sergeant. After the war, Bell returned to the United States in March 1919. He returned to Penn as captain of the team in the fall and again performed erratically. The Quakers finished 1919 with a 6-2-1 record. Academically, his aversion to attending classes forced him to withdraw from Penn without a degree in early 1920. His collegiate days ended with his having been a borderline All-American, but this period of his life had proven that he "possessed the qualities of a leader." CANNOTANSWER

Question: How long did Bert Bell teach at University of Pennsylvania?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Bert Bell

Context: Bell entered Penn in the fall of 1914 as an English major and joined Phi Kappa Sigma. In a rare occurrence for a sophomore, he became the starting quarterback for Penn's coach George H. Brooke. On the team, he also was as a defender, punter, and punt returner. After the team's 3-0 start, Bell temporarily shared possession of his quarterbacking duties until he subsequently reclaimed them later in the season, as Penn finished with a record of 3-5-2.  Prior to Penn's 1916 season, his mother died while he was en route to her bedside. Nevertheless, he started the first game for the Quakers under new coach Bob Folwell, but mixed results left him platooned for the rest of the season. Penn finished with a record of 7-2-1. However, the Quakers secured an invitation to the 1917 Rose Bowl against the Oregon Ducks. Although the best offensive gain for Penn during their 20-14 loss to Oregon was a 20-yard run by Bell, he was replaced late in the game at quarterback after throwing an interception.  In the 1917 season, Bell led Penn to a 9-2 record. Afterwards, he registered with a Mobile Hospital Unit of the US Army for World War I and was deployed to France in May 1918. As a result of his unit participating in hazardous duty, it received a congratulatory letter for bravery from General John J. Pershing, and Bell was promoted to first sergeant. After the war, Bell returned to the United States in March 1919. He returned to Penn as captain of the team in the fall and again performed erratically. The Quakers finished 1919 with a 6-2-1 record. Academically, his aversion to attending classes forced him to withdraw from Penn without a degree in early 1920. His collegiate days ended with his having been a borderline All-American, but this period of his life had proven that he "possessed the qualities of a leader." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did Bert Bell have any scandals while teaching at University of Pennsylvania?
Answer: his aversion to attending classes forced him to withdraw from Penn without a degree in early 1920.
Bert Bell

Context: Bell entered Penn in the fall of 1914 as an English major and joined Phi Kappa Sigma. In a rare occurrence for a sophomore, he became the starting quarterback for Penn's coach George H. Brooke. On the team, he also was as a defender, punter, and punt returner. After the team's 3-0 start, Bell temporarily shared possession of his quarterbacking duties until he subsequently reclaimed them later in the season, as Penn finished with a record of 3-5-2.  Prior to Penn's 1916 season, his mother died while he was en route to her bedside. Nevertheless, he started the first game for the Quakers under new coach Bob Folwell, but mixed results left him platooned for the rest of the season. Penn finished with a record of 7-2-1. However, the Quakers secured an invitation to the 1917 Rose Bowl against the Oregon Ducks. Although the best offensive gain for Penn during their 20-14 loss to Oregon was a 20-yard run by Bell, he was replaced late in the game at quarterback after throwing an interception.  In the 1917 season, Bell led Penn to a 9-2 record. Afterwards, he registered with a Mobile Hospital Unit of the US Army for World War I and was deployed to France in May 1918. As a result of his unit participating in hazardous duty, it received a congratulatory letter for bravery from General John J. Pershing, and Bell was promoted to first sergeant. After the war, Bell returned to the United States in March 1919. He returned to Penn as captain of the team in the fall and again performed erratically. The Quakers finished 1919 with a 6-2-1 record. Academically, his aversion to attending classes forced him to withdraw from Penn without a degree in early 1920. His collegiate days ended with his having been a borderline All-American, but this period of his life had proven that he "possessed the qualities of a leader." CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did Bert Bell do after teaching?
Answer: for bravery from General John J. Pershing, and Bell was promoted to first sergeant.
Bert Bell

Context: Bell entered Penn in the fall of 1914 as an English major and joined Phi Kappa Sigma. In a rare occurrence for a sophomore, he became the starting quarterback for Penn's coach George H. Brooke. On the team, he also was as a defender, punter, and punt returner. After the team's 3-0 start, Bell temporarily shared possession of his quarterbacking duties until he subsequently reclaimed them later in the season, as Penn finished with a record of 3-5-2.  Prior to Penn's 1916 season, his mother died while he was en route to her bedside. Nevertheless, he started the first game for the Quakers under new coach Bob Folwell, but mixed results left him platooned for the rest of the season. Penn finished with a record of 7-2-1. However, the Quakers secured an invitation to the 1917 Rose Bowl against the Oregon Ducks. Although the best offensive gain for Penn during their 20-14 loss to Oregon was a 20-yard run by Bell, he was replaced late in the game at quarterback after throwing an interception.  In the 1917 season, Bell led Penn to a 9-2 record. Afterwards, he registered with a Mobile Hospital Unit of the US Army for World War I and was deployed to France in May 1918. As a result of his unit participating in hazardous duty, it received a congratulatory letter for bravery from General John J. Pershing, and Bell was promoted to first sergeant. After the war, Bell returned to the United States in March 1919. He returned to Penn as captain of the team in the fall and again performed erratically. The Quakers finished 1919 with a 6-2-1 record. Academically, his aversion to attending classes forced him to withdraw from Penn without a degree in early 1920. His collegiate days ended with his having been a borderline All-American, but this period of his life had proven that he "possessed the qualities of a leader." CANNOTANSWER

Question: How long was Bert Bell enlisted in the army?
Answer: in March 1919.