Try a "solve for x" problem with the equation described in prose (still using short variable names and numbers though):
x added to 4 all divided by 3 is equal to 16.
one third of x plus four is the same as sixteen
the result of dividing four and x by three is sixteen.
There's a reason a good portion of elementary mathematics was spent on "word problems", where we reduced problems like this down to their essential equations (a process of abstraction, though not described to us as such). Usually you'd see the above as something like:
Andrew has some number of apples. Billy gives him 4
more. He splits the apples evenly between himself,
Billy, and Charlie. Everyone has 16 apples, how many
did Andrew have to start with?
Maybe I didn't make my point clearly. I'm not arguing against the use of notation or symbols. I'm asking whether Greek specifically is slowing learning down or intimidating people from starting. I'm asking whether learning the symbols with the concepts is the most efficient way to learn math, not whether it's the most efficient way to do math.
Maybe the laborious way is better if more people are comfortable starting that way, and easing more slowly into symbolic syntax.
Maybe there's a more compelling story about math that will get more people interested in it than teaching what symbols do.
If Greek is intimidating enough that many people never start, it doesn't matter how actually laborious the symbols are or not, the battle is lost.
But, nothing about writing math in text prevents manipulating the text, right? You can do it, it would just be laborious and exhausting for people who are familiar with the use of symbols.