Not any other language. Merely any other mainstream language aside from possibly JavaScript (which is very nearly Scheme with C-style syntax).
It actually doesn't sound like we disagree on much other than what makes a language Lisp-like. ;-)
I'm primarily concerned with the "blub" and "power continuum" concepts that pg came up with. Any language lower on the power continuum is blub, and if you're only familiar with blub you can't see why a language higher up is more powerful. My basic assertion is that Perl has much more room below it on the power continuum than above it, with pretty much just Lisp (and other macro-capable functional languages) being clearly above it. Perl 6 introduces macros, so the picture changes a little bit come Christmas (or whenever the first Perl 6 is released).
And, I agree that syntax is a huge gaping difference between Lisp and Perl. But Lisp is hugely different from all other mainstream languages in that regard, as well, so it has to be canceled out, as far as I'm concerned. So, once syntax as a difference in removed, all you have is "what concepts can you implement readily in this language", and Perl has pretty much everything except macros. Most other mainstream languages are missing some number of others.
So: I have specified a few things that, to me, seem remarkably different from Lisp. In some cases, such features are more cumbersome or less flexible. In others, such as the reserved characters, there is no clear winner.
That Common Lisp has few if any reserved characters gives me lots of freedom to change how my program looks. In my example above, I could remap 'funcall' to '&' and the result would look almost just like Perl. It means, though, that I have to be really careful not to do anything stupid lest my program be unreadable. Perl, in contrast, has built-in meanings for all sorts of punctuation. This often saves a lot of typing, and allows many ideas to be expressed succinctly without any extraneous configuration So Lisp is more flexible in a sense, but it's not immediately clear that this makes Lisp more powerful.
What I'm interested in, is how much different it is to program in lisp as compared to perl. The symbols thing seems minor in principle. But in practice, when coding in Lisp I find this flexibility leads to a completely different way of thinking. It's way too early for me to say whether one is better than the other, but the difference is remarkable.
merely syntax
Perl is full of syntax. There's syntax for everything, personally I think it's one of Perl's strengths. Lisp, in contrast, (usually) has very little syntax. It's orthogonal and consistent. (limited and static, if you'd prefer more negative connotations)
Some people do better memorizing huge number of details, others do better learning core rules and applying them to each case. In my first year of music theory, my professor took the "few core rules, consistently applied" approach to teaching voice-leading and almost everyone hated it. The first day of class next semester, my new professor handed out a voice-leading review sheet that was, front-and-back, covered with rules about what to do in a given context. Most people seemed to prefer it that way.