(Hypocritically, I have a stylistic choice to argue about: I would have, instead of {lo jukpa lo cifnu cu kansa}, said {lo jukpa .e lo cifnu cu kansa}; in the original text, the line is "the cook and the baby joined", not "the cook joined the baby")
But "lo jukpa .e lo cifnu cu kansa" means that each of them was doing something with someone, not that they were doing something together. "lo jukpa joi lo cifnu cu kansi'u" would have worked though.There are a some gismu like kansa, penmi, and a few others where I really don't like it when people use a plural in x1 and leave the x2 unfilled with the intention that it be taken as "reciprocally".
mu'o mi'e xorxes