Some comments – again in no particular order.
1.Cor. 13:1 – The one and only place in the Bible where “tongues of angels” is mentioned – that passage has been analyzed every which way you can think of and then some – it’s pure hyperbole no matter how you slice and dice it. This is perhaps a bit more evident when looking at the Greek grammar of the phrase.
As I mentioned in a previous post – traditional Jewish belief was that angels spoke one language only, and a real one at that: Hebrew.
9 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
Throughout this part of his letter, Paul is calling for clarity and intelligibility at a public worship; “in the church" is a direct reference to his point: In the church speak so that all may understand, whether your speaking yourself or via an interpreter. To speak in a foreign language no one at that particular meeting understands (weather one word or ten thousand), benefits only the person speaking and just adds to the general confusion. Outside of the church, do whatever you will. Corinth is Corinth – walk down the street and within an hour, you’ll hear at least ten different tongues/languages, but in church, if you’re going to speak aloud, make sure you have a means for everyone to understand.
If Paul knew the language he was speaking when he spoke and prayed in tongues how/why was his mind "unfruitful"? (1 Cor. 14:14) Nothing said about "reading languages".
If you understand the language that you are speaking you are not speaking in tongues regardless if there is someone there who speaks that language or not. Speaking in tongues is not speaking a "mystery" to other men but it is speaking "mysteries (secrets)" to God in a language that you don't know and have never learned.
“read languages” just means that where you see “tongue”, the word should be read a understood as “language”.
1 Corinthians 14:14 is probably the main text used to argue that the language speaker did not understand his language. To paraphrase from an article on this: Paul says that if he should speak in a language (without translation), "my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful [akarpos]." Some takes akarpos as passive: "my nous or understanding" is inactive and thus akarpos--"barren," "unfruitful," producing no distinct thoughts".
Paul however could also be using akarpos in the active sense:
A decision upon its meaning centers in akarpos ("unfruitful") whether the adjective is passive in sense, meaning the speaker himself receives no benefit, or active in sense, meaning his nous (understanding) provides no benefit to others...The view that assigns akarpos a meaning of "produces nothing, contributes nothing to the process"... is not convincing, because akarpos does not mean "inactive." It is a word for results and does not apply to the process through which the results are obtained. The present discussion does not center on the activity or nonactivity of the tongues speaker's mind, but rather on potential benefit derived by listeners.
The whole context of 1 Corinthians 14 is the effect upon the hearers of untranslated languages. Paul’s concern is the edification of the group. Therefore, 14:14 should be taken as "My spirit prays but my mind does not produce fruit [in others]." This says nothing about whether or not the speaker understood his own utterance.
Another way of looking at it is: my spirit prays (and I understand what I’m saying), but my understanding (the fact that I understand what I’m saying) does not produce fruit (in others – an active use of ‘akarpos’), i.e. that fact I understand what I’m saying doesn’t benefit anyone else as no one here speaks my language.
In fact, you’re not going to find anywhere in the Bible where it specifically indicates that the speaker either does or does not understand what he is saying. It is simply never definitively stated. It has to be inferred from context. If you adhere to T-speech, then the speaker does not understand what he’s saying. With real languages, he does as it's his native tongue (sic!).
As sort of a quick aside, something to note is that when Paul describes different “kinds of tongues”, the word he uses for ‘kinds’ actually denotes ‘families’ (‘genos’), i.e. in this case, “language families” (e.g. Semitic as opposed to Italic, as opposed to Celtic, etc.) – there is no way to interpret that phrase as anything but referring to real languages. Why would there ever be a need for language families (or indeed, even the need for more than one language) in supposed ‘angelic/heavenly’ languages? Kinds of tongues = families of (real) languages.
That is not true. Tongues are languages. The person speaking in tongues does not know what language he is speaking, or what he is saying. This is why tongues, when spoken in public, must be interpreted.
This is a bit difficult to respond to as I’m still a bit unclear as to your definition of ‘tongues’ – “languages of men” seems to not fit the bill here as they would be real languages and immediately identifiable as such. In this respect, what you’d be describing would be more xenoglossy (a/k/a xenoglossia). There are, however, no known provable cases of this phenomenon.
With respect to languages of angels, there does not seem to be such a thing. Angels in traditional Jewish belief speak Hebrew, not some angelic/heavenly language.
Modern tongues are simply not language – I thought I posted something on this, but perhaps not – I’ll post it later.
When Paul said "I speak with tongues more than ye all" he was talking about speaking in tongues, and not about speaking languages he knew.
I have to respectfully disagree with that, I believe Paul was simply referring to the various languages he had acquired in his travels.