Jude, maybe it's not a typo. 00:37 Feb 12, 2015
You're probably thinking of the verb confundir = to confuse. Think of the etymology: con= with or together; fundir = to melt. When you think of it that way, it makes perfect sense, and one could even suspect that this (melting together or blending) was a meaning of confundir before the "usual" meaning, to confuse, became the norm. It may seem a bit of a stretch, in that case, to think that to confuse means something along the lines of "make things seem to melt together into an amorphous unintelliglbe mass in the mind of the hearer" i.e. "clear as mud" if you will. But then, many an etymology is quite a stretch, you'd be surprised at some of them.
On the other hand, maybe it is a typo and the author meant to say "nos fundimos" as you suggest. Makes a lot more sense.
A third possibility is that it is a deliberate typo - that the author purposely said confundimos as a play on words. Seems less likely but quite possible. You know, literary license and all that.
Hinara, it's probably best to take it at face value and pick one of the answers offered. If it's a deliberate wordplay, it'll be next to impossible to translate. | 
peer agreement (net): +1
