staving And Rosta:

> This paragraph is largely true, except that I'm not aware of evidence 
> for
> _will_ being grammaticalized to different degrees across dialects and, 
> more
> pertinently, it does not bear on the difference between analyses, 
> which
> stems not from differences between lects but rather from differences
> between schools of linguistic analysis.
> --And.

Specifically, I am defining tense as a grammatical mechanism whose main 
purpose is to mark the time-frame of a verb. And and Ray posit a 
definition with further constraints upon it. The English future 
satisfies the definition of tense that I am using, and not the one that 
And and Ray are using (possibly because it uses a different marking 
strategy to the past tense, or because it shares some features with 
grammatical markers of different categories, such as aspect and mood, or 
because it is more flexible in its marking strategy than the past).

Still, it's not surprising that such debates should arise about a topic 
as complex and poorly-studied as English verbs, which have dozens of 
barely documented forms, such as the "keep doing" habitual and the "get 
done" passive. Most English grammar textbooks only describe 4 aspects!