Are constructed mathematical syntaxes discouraged by the mathematical community? I get a little bit dyslexic/dyscalculia-like, when I try to interpret the more complicated arrangements of numbers [and symbols], used to describe set-theory and calculus. So I've taken to writing psuedocode, and drowning my statements in unnecessary parentheses [to help me nullify the need to remember an "order of operations"]. 
I'm even working on a new personal standard math-markup-language, to help myself grasp an ever expanding range of topics. But that begs the question; assuming I find something that works for me and does not fail/contradict itself: "Will I universally be expected [by the academic community of mathematicians] to translate my work into the pre-existing "standard notation" for it to be taken seriously; or is the academic field willing to accept different standards of mathematical expression, so long as they are fully realized [syntactically-standardized notations]?
If a new way of describing the same maths/math crops up [alongside the tradional way of describing those maths]: does it have a fighting chance? Or is it something that is universally frowned upon and considered disreputable [in an academic setting]? 
 A: I expect there are a few cases where new notations have revolutionized a field. There's an example in my field (CAGD): the development of "blossoming" provided a new way to label points in space, and magically made lots of things trivially easy to prove.
However, I suspect that this is very unusual. More typically, a new unconventional notation is just an inconvenience that adds burden and pain for the reader.
If you use unconventional terminology and notation that adds no significant value, you risk having your papers rejected by research journals. I have rejected papers (partly) for this reason myself.
So, unless you think your new notations will provide significant benefit for large numbers of people, I'd advise you to abandon them and spend your valuable time trying to get comfortable with the ones used by the rest of us.
A: Mathematitians are busy people and don't want to learn new notation unless they have to. You are basically asking "will the global mathematical community adapt to my notation", and sorry, but the answer to that is no. You can't (and shouldn't) expect people to learn replacement notation just so they can read something you wrote.
