Acronyms, short forms, abbreviations and similar language tools extensively being applied in real-time communication media are able to send wrong linguistic signals to budding language users. • How genuine is this concern in your opinion? Today, it is conveniences that make human life much easier than it was. This is reflected in communication devices as well in the form of abridged language expressions. As a matter of fact, this is a matter of some concern. The popularity of short text messaging is much higher among people today. This is mainly to save money, energy and time. However, the concern here is on a single poser: is language alteration worth promoting randomly? I tend to say, it is not, because in real time communication media, younger ones, especially, children extensively use hybrid versions of words and expressions. It may send wrong signals. For example, writing ‘lukt’ instead of looked, ‘hru’ instead of how are you, ‘metu ltr’ for meet you later, and ‘gr8’ for great, ‘C U ltr’ for see you later and the like are likely to be absorbed by young language learners. This may distort their spelling and grammar consciousness. This is a genuine concern indeed. This concern notwithstanding, we need to understand that basic business of any language is make communication easier and possible, and adopting a few not-so-harmful language liberties is worth it. This is primarily because of the fact that today, most of the people are running short of time, and saving time by avoiding complicated spellings and combinations are need of the hour. Above all, people start using these hybrid language versions knowing fully well that the real words and expressions are different from what they use. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that indiscriminate altering of language leaves room for a little concern, especially when it comes to children. But we cannot ignore the fact that wise management of this liberty is of great value in today’s fast paced life. 275 words Ajaypeesdoc. 25.9.011