Replacing them with words does nothing to reduce the meaning, it would simply be more verbose while carrying less cognitive load.
In many situation, verbosity decrease the readability of formula, though.
Beside, if you choose words, you can either:
- chose brand new "words", and I don't see the difference with symbols, except they're longer (also, which characters? That's cultural, also)
- chose existing words, and you have an increased cultural bias
If you use symbols, I don't see how changing them will help in any way.
I realize your number question is meant to be rhetorical but it's a good question and you should understand it as such. Does a traditional roman number system really provide the best possible representation? I can't conclusively say but considering it was built thousands of years ago without that in mind I have my doubts.
It wasn't totally rhetorical, but it's just a shape associated to a quantity. Would a different shape be better? I doubt it, and the benefit would be marginal at best, with a huge cost.
If no better proposal occurs, then the current system stands.
You're welcome to try devising a better system, but I can't see how you'll succeed.
Readability for beginners count for nothing, when you balance a couple hours to get used to symbols, to a life made easier using them.
Changes can be done, obviously. It happened a lot. Usually, they replaced words by symbols, and everything were easier and clearer. Have you ever read books from Newton, Leibniz or Huygens? They used words for maths, it's just utterly unreadable, even if you exactly now what they're talking about.
Leibniz notation have been seen as a huge step in the right direction, and I don't think many people would like to go back.