I give up.

Many modernisers claim to want to simplify the language. This is bunkum. What they mean is they don’t know what is correct and are too idle to find out, so they make arbitrary changes with no regard to the consequences.

Thus it used to be simple. It used to be seriously simple. There was only one way of saying it, you took “gum” and prefixed “type of gum -”. Now, the modernisers tell us that having two rules is simpler than having one rule! One rule applies to clashing letters, the other rule applies to the rest.

So, increasing the number of rules to handle what should have been identical constructs, thereby introducing spurious differences, is simpler is it?

That’s the point.

If bubble-gum had always been bubblegum then no sweat, but it wasn’t, and this is a poor change.

Obviously some hyphens can be dropped harmlessly as the language develops, but care must be taken, rather more care than some who should know better seem willing to take. (He said, carefully not naming a certain company as requested, grin!)

OK, I admit it, I worry about the dear old hyphen in the same way that others champion the dear old apostrophe. Somebody has to!

Just to illustrate how dumb modern usage has become, the on-line dictionary, Wictionary gives bubblegum not bubble-gum, but then gives chewing-gum but not chewinggum. Such nonsensical inconsistency should be avoided surely?

Loved BARQUES, that definitely raised a smile.

Come to that, what is the question mark doing in 25ac. I thought a question mark was supposed to indicate a slightly off centre definition like 1ac. The definition is perfectly correct here so is it because the setter thought this was a rather dubious clue. (Well done mhl for the explanation which eluded me.)