English, it is said, has no future tense. To indicate future we do not inflect our verbs but instead use the modal verb will.
In his answer to Why do we say “was supposed to” for “should have”? Cerberus guides us through how words often shift from communicating desirability to communicating probability. In the case of will he writes,
Will once expressed only that someone desired something ... but it has gradually acquired a sense of probability, in that it now means "it is very likely that I go" for most speakers of English, especially Americans.
I am curious whether there was ever any resistance to the use of will with inanimate subjects. I can imagine people objecting to giving intent or desire to non-thinking things.
Of course, as this shift/addition in meaning is quite old and dates as far back as the late 9th century, finding any documentation of grammarian pushback may be impossible. (See OED will, v. 16.) However, scanning through the OED's examples it appears the first use of will as a future auxiliary with an inanimate subject is from 1563:
If a darke cloude be at the sunne rysing, in whiche the sunne soone after is hidde..rayn wyll followe.
Also, English grammar is not immune to retroactive prescriptivism (see singular they) so I can imagine the possibility of people rejecting will for inanimate subjects well after it became standard usage, and when evidence is more likely.
Was there ever any resistance to the use of will or other desire-expressing verbs with inanimate subjects?