I don't believe the tongues Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 14 was a miracle of hearing. I believe the speaker was speaking in a tongue unbeknownst to the the hearer. Else, why would there be a need for an interpreter
Agreed, but the tongues in Acts 2 may well have been, due to the comment, "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" Now, I may be incorrect in this assesment, but it may be correct. He didn't say, How hear we every man speaking in our own tongue? Maybe just a figure of speech meaning the same thing, but maybe not. We do know they spoke with other tongues while still in the upper room, but did they continue outside, or were they speaking their native tongues and others heard them in their tongues?
But here is another thought on 1Cor 14: How could Paul tell them NOT to speak in tongues if there is no interpreter present? If, like in the pentecostal manner, the Lord just flung the tongues out of their mouths at random times, would it not be correct to assume the Lord would also cause someone to interpret? If not, how would one know whether there WAS an interpreter or not, if both came by the Spirit, unexpectedly? Seems more like, in 1Cor 14, people were speaking languages they knew, but were unknown to the hearers, so they were forbidden to speak such unless there was someone they knew could interpret it. Like a foreign missionary speaking in his native tongue should have an interpreter.