Every utterance comes as an intention to intervene in a conversation already under way - intention being stressed only because it may be more or less fulfilled in action, but the fulfilment is not so important as the various modes by which this intention is consumed - intention carrying the sense of in + tension, a tension of inwit to be resolved ...  somehow; the intention is not necessarily matched with some definite optative proposition. Henry James with his famous 'hanging fire': in a back and forth conversational exchange, one party refrains from responding in the established rhythm, there is a suspension of dialogue which produces a predictable increase in the effect of subjectivity, in the subjectivisation of character; the reader is thrown back on an indefinite intention or absence of intention - this is also a kind of syncopation, a delayed note being a tiny subjectivisation, but whether it is delayed or not depends on expectation. James's metaphor is interesting because it suggests a fire-fight, and exchange of shots doubtless prepared to kill. To come out with an utterance is to open, to open fire, or to make the first move in a game, or a negotiation, diplomacy, war by other means. To open is also to give a status report, in both senses of status, and many utterances are just that, or in a slight modification of angle, or directionality, they are indications of a disposition towards the status of the other, expressing say, degree of compliance with the general position, the mutual arrangement of status and intention. And if you don't open you are hanging fire, but you are exposed nonetheless.