I have no idea what you've just said, but it doesn't make any sense.
Of course parsers are described by recursive functions, that's because recursive functions usually describe a push-down automata or a DFA, which you know, is needed for a parser.
But describing a parser is not easy, even in lispy languages ... you still need a declarative syntax (like BNF or PEGs) for those rules, you still need a strategy (like LL(*) or LALR(1)), you still need to deal with context-dependent constructs, and you still need an AST that must be optimized.
Text parsing is also not one of Lisp's strengths. Many implementations don't even have proper regexp engines ... but indeed, it's easy to translate any language to LISP as long as you're goal is not to generate something human readable.
Of course parsers are described by recursive functions, that's because recursive functions usually describe a push-down automata or a DFA, which you know, is needed for a parser.
But describing a parser is not easy, even in lispy languages ... you still need a declarative syntax (like BNF or PEGs) for those rules, you still need a strategy (like LL(*) or LALR(1)), you still need to deal with context-dependent constructs, and you still need an AST that must be optimized.
Text parsing is also not one of Lisp's strengths. Many implementations don't even have proper regexp engines ... but indeed, it's easy to translate any language to LISP as long as you're goal is not to generate something human readable.