Acts 2:4 As the Spirit gave utterance

Acts 2:4 ends with the phrase, "as the Spirit gave them utterance, or as the Spirit enabled them." 

Meaning, in all of Christian life, nothing is accomplished apart from God. 

The followers of Christ on the day of Pentecost spoke in the languages of at least fifteen different countries or ethnic groups. The description in the text states that people from various regions, like Parthia, Media, Elam, Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Libya, Rome, Crete, and Arabia, were able to understand the disciples speaking in their own languages.

The context of the phrase "the Spirit gave them utterance" clearly acknowledges that the Holy Spirit immediately gave each disciple the ability to speak in a language they had not previously learned, enabling them to declare Christ. Yes, it was evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and also a very unique experience for the disciples. The word utterance is not found with the same event in Acts 11:17 where the Holy Spirit interrupted Peter's preaching but was the identical Pentecost experience minus the 15 languages and recognized as the same experience by (Jews) accompanying Peter. Yes this was also a unique experience where Gentiles were also seen to be saved and baptised in the Holy Spirit going beyond the Jewish nation. 

How are we to understand the phrase: The Spirit gave them utterance? 

A question has been raised by some Pentecostal who pray for people to receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit but there is no expression of the gift in tongues, perhaps delayed by the Holy Spirit based on the word "as" the Spirit gave evidence. Therefore, tongues is not needed, the word evidence is the wrong word and the person may later speak in tongues. I have written about the human side and reasons but will not speak to that now. 

Is this argument genuine? Can "as" or "gave utterance (give) mean something else?

The root fallacy presupposes that every word has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this case, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of words. 

For example, the etymology of the English word "nice" originates from the Latin "nescius," meaning "ignorant." Our "good-bye" is a construction for Anglo-Saxon, "God be with you." 

For example, it is true that the entire range of (agapao, to love and the entire range of (phileo, to love) are not exactly the same, nevertheless they enjoy substantial overlap and where they overlap, appeal to"root meaning" in order to discern a difference is fallacious. 

In 2 Samuel 13 (LXX) both (agapao, to love) and the cognate (agape, love) can refer to Amnon's incestuous rape of his half sister Tamar (2 Samuel:13).

When Demas abandoned Paul because he loved this present, evil world, the verb agapo is used. John 3:35 records that the Father loves the Son and uses agapao. John 5:20 repeats the thought, but uses phileo without any discernible shift in meaning. 

There is nothing intrinsic to a verb to prove it has a hidden meaning, agapao, or the noun agape to prove its real meaning to some kind of special love. 

Words do have meaning. An individual word has a certain limited semantic range, and the context may therefore modify or shape the meaning of a word only within certain boundaries. The total semantic range is not permanently fixed, of course, with time and novel usage, it may shift considerably. The meaning of a word cannot be reliably determined by etymology, or that a root, once discovered, always projects a certain semantic load onto any word that incorporates that root. 

Where we are providing the lexical range inductively observed or specifying the meaning of a word in a particular context we must not add too much etymological baggage. When words or phrases only appear once, etymology is a clumsy tool for discerning meaning, the lack of comparative material means we have no choice. But if the word appears 400 times then we can draw conclusions.

The attempt to imply a time delay or hesitancy by the Holy Spirit in the English "As the Spirit gave them utterance," in English misrepresent the greek. 

"kathos to pneuma edidou autois apophthengesthai' reads "the Spirit was giving to them to speak out." (verb 3sing indic imperfect act) There is no delay with "was giving." 

• Edidou: The imperfect indicative active voice verb form indicates a past action that was ongoing, repeated, or habitual, rather than a completed action. Utterance -giving (edidou) to them to speak out (autois apophthengesthai). Conjuring a delay is incorrect.

• (This may not be helpful) Didomi is a frequently used very (400 times in the NT) follows several categories of use - giving items, of giving a blessing, we give to God, and God giving Jesus.
• In Matthew 20:28 Jesus gave his life as a ransom. Jesus promised to give His followers a mouth (words to speak) when apprehended by the authorities (Luke 21:15) In Acts 2:4 the Spirit gave the early disciples  the power to speak with tongues at Pentecost. Acts 11:18 says God granted (gave) repentance to Gentiles as well as Jews. Both Acts 2:27 and Acts 13:35 refer to Psalm 16 indicating that God would not allow (give) His Holy One to see corruption. Romans 14:12 says that Christians will give an account of themselves at the judgement. In Ephesians 4:27 Paul warns his readers not to give place (an opportunity) to the devil.

• Kathos: In Biblical Greek, "conj." typically stands for conjunction. Conjunctions, like "and," "but," and "or," are words that connect other words, phrases, or clauses within a sentence or passage. They show the relationship between those elements.

Without reference to context, words, verbs and relying on a simple thought in English that "as the Spirit gives utterance" mean "The Holy Spirit may give utterance goes beyond common sense. 

To say 'as' (the conjunction) means may is like deriving the meaning of "butterfly" from butter and fly.