No, that's the problem. Without the simxu, nothing is explicit. All we know is that "we" are living with someone, not who. Yes, it is IMPLICIT that if A is living with X and B is also living with X then A is living with B (although one can certainly contrive situations where that is not true) The simxu makes explicit that it is reflexive -- we are living with each other.
BTW, the reason (and again, I am conjecturing here) that Xorxes may prefer kansi'u to kansa in most cases is perhaps he perceives it as implying that lo kansa is subordinate to lo se kansa, in that the se kansa is the one that is actually the x1 of the lo te kansa, and lo kansa is simply a "hanger-on". (similar to a sidju relationship)
--gejyspa
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Jonathan Jones
<eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
...Without "simxu", it means "we are accompanying-type-of-living", whihc might mean we are as a group living with someone ELSE....
That's not really a problem, IMO. While it may be true that the sentence exactly as is, but without simxu, implies that lo go'i may be living with others, it's only explicit that lo go'i ARE, and in this case, the implication is true, since they are living with their pets and children as well, as we are told later in the comic.