Chers
Flamant Rose et jcjeant,
I still am in disagreement with you:
Entirely in agreement with jcjeant.
Le verbe "assister" ne signifie aucunement que le Cdb prend part à la discussion. Il est
présent et entend l'échange entre les deux co-pilotes mais ne "participe" pas à cet échange. Il n'y a aucun doute la-dessus. Il n'est nulle part fait mention que le Cdb ait dit quoi que ce soit à ce moment là sinon il aurait pris part et donc aurait participé
.
Really, "assister" is not always employed in the restricted use you advocate. While I can agree with you for the assistance to a tennis-match, I do not definetely would agree for the assistance to a briefing.
That at least others have the same feeling like me (note my careful, polite and non-authoritive wordings in my initial post), I might be allowed to substantiate by showing an exerpt from the very first google answer to the meaning of "assister" and its translation
:
assister, verbe transitif
Sens 1
Secourir,
aider quelqu'un. Synonyme
secourir Anglais to assist Sens 2
Seconder. Synonyme
seconder Anglais to assist Sens 3
Être présent. Ex
Assister à un match de tennis. Synonyme
être Anglais to attend
Note that the meaning that you state as exclusive (
il n'y a aucun doute) even ranks only 3rd place.
Now, I also have looked in some old dictionaries (50 y), and, curiously enough, the
order is the other way around.
Given these facts we possibly could agree on the following
1) assister is a word for which the extent of its meanings has some leeway
2) this leeway apparently seems to change in time
3) most likeky the BEA-writer was not conscious about all this semantic issues this when he used the expression
4) and anyhow we do not know his own perceiption of our subject of discussion.
Bien Amicalement