About your edit,
It's Pattern => Language bug, not Language bug => Pattern. You are assuming the opposite meaning.
In other words, not all bugs are patterns but all patterns are necesarily bugs (not IMO, it's just the interpretation).
I agree that you're right in strict logic sense, but the statement that everything has bugs is already tongue-in-cheek.
Anyway, what I really meant was that every language has semantic limitations that can manifest as patterns which the users have to apply. Even Lisp (static type checking) or Haskell (dependent types).
Edit: Actually, I think your request is even more ridiculous. If what Norvig is saying is true, then every language has patterns, because every language has bugs. So you are asking to substantiate his statement by providing a counterexample.