problem with an argument

I have some problem with the following argument. It seems to me that it is talking about that how french verbs suivre and etre combine together and compose something like suis that means both of the previous verbs simultaneously. And it says that sens is another french word that means several different meanings like “sense”, “meaning” and “direction”. Am I right? But, how is it relevant to the next last sentence that is highlighted by green?

Context:

Ulmer points out, Lacan notes ‘a knot in the conjugations of suivre (to follow) and etre (to be), both conjugated in the first person singular as suis: “I follow/I am”. This knot becomes entangled in another one, the plurality of sens – “sense”, “meaning” and “direction”’. Perhaps it makes complete sense, then, that the only ‘other’ I encountered on this path hailed me in French (and I reciprocated).