What is the ruling if someone uses an oath particle but denies intending an oath?

Primary text

If someone uses the explicit particle of an oath (like *Tallah*) followed by the answer to the oath, the claim that they did not intend an oath is not accepted because the explicit wording and the contextual clue of the response confirm the oath. However, in the specific case of saying *Tallah la'aqumann* (By Allah, I will stand up), if the speaker intends it to mean, "My standing up is by the aid and grace of Allah," it might be accepted because this is an interpretation that the phrase can bear. Acceptance is less likely for the other two oath letters due to lack of similar semantic flexibility.