Because that is a joke, it proposes replacements only for a small set of Ada tokens and it is not clear how the proposal can be cleanly extended to the full set of Ada tokens.

Nevertheless in is possible to define a complete 1 to 1 mapping of all Ada syntactic tokens to a different set of tokens.

The resulting language will have exactly the same abstract syntax as Ada, so it is definitely exactly the same language, only with a different appearance.

For a seasoned Ada programmer, changing the appearance of the language may be repugnant, but for a newbie there may be no difference between two alternative sets of tokens, especially when the programmers are not native English speakers, so they do not feel any particular loyalty to words like "begin" and "loop", so they may not feel any advantage of using them instead of using some kind of brackets that would replace them.

I think there is a significant difference between choosing to use words (from some language) versus using brackets like {}, () and []. With nested brackets there are often debates over placement and it is usually less clear what scope is being ended by the closing bracket.