Hi Mesud
Finally - someone to start evaluating this one. Sorry for the looong delay...
The first and the second part of this translation seem to point to slightly different interpretations:
1. If there were no tears of lovers as well as their burning heart, there would not be water on earth as well as fire. -> we know for a fact that burning hearts, and fire, exist (no doubts or speculations there); if
in addition to this, there were no tears, there would be no water in addition to the fire.
2. If there were no tears of lovers or their burning hearts, there would be neither water nor fire on earth. -> if both these things did not exist, there would be no fire and no water.
Can you see the difference I am trying to point out? Which would be the best interpretation, and should we use that wording or do you have another suggestion?