Well I counted 0 references to Lisp or Scheme in the documentation, so it seems to be presented as novel.

When you have methods named `cons` `car` and `cdr` that appear to work in the same way as lisp's methods of the same name it's pretty clear that you're not pretending or attempting to be "novel".

While it _should_ say it's a lisp / scheme, given those it doesn't really _need_ to say that because it's pretty forehead slappingly obvious to anyone who knows what lisp or scheme are.

But then if you call it a Lisp or even mention Lisp, some other wise guy is going to complain that it's not a real Lisp.

Even if you don't mention Lisp, people will assume you were trying to make it a Lisp and complain that you didn't follow Lisp precedent. Examples can be found in this very comment section.

It has cons cells, and lists terminated by a symbol whose name is nil. It's more of a Lisp than Clojure.

Me, I’m counting!