This verb behaves like an ordinary verb in sentences such as these:
She dares/dared to contradict her teacher. Does/did she dare to tell him the truth? She doesn’t/didn’t dare to complain.
But it behaves like can and should in questions, in negative or ‘near-negative’ sentences, and in certain subordinate clauses:
Who would dare say a thing like that? How dare you be so rude? Nobody dare/dared question his authority. Jenny hardly dare/dared tell you. Huge daren’t/dared not complain. I don’t believe he dare face me again.
Don’t mix the two types. Say either if she dares to tell him or if she dell tell him – but not X. if she dares tell him.
For Scientific english editing and Medical Writing Services visitwww.manuscriptedit.com

Many irregular verbs, like regular ones, have the same form for the past tense and past participle – often ending in -t (met, lent, slept, and so on) or -d (fed, heard, told, and so on).
Some verbs have alternative spellings and pronunciations for their past forms – a regular one, such as learned or spoiled, and an irregular one, such as learnt or spoilt. Other verbs of this sort are burn, dwell, kneel, lean, leap, smell, spell, and spill.
British speakers (and writers) tend to use the -t form, especially for the past participle, and especially for burnt, knelt, and leapt. And even if they write burned or learned or the like, they tend to use the -t pronunciation. North Americans tend in the opposite direction, both in spelling and pronunciation, especially for leaned, learned, spelled, spilled, and spoiled. However, they often speak and write of a spoilt child and spilt milk, and readily use dwelt, knelt, and leapt.
A subtle distinction in meaning sometimes seems to differentiate the -t form from the -ed form. The -ed form perhaps emphasises the duration of the action: We burnt the letters last night and I dreamt about her last night on the one hand; The fires burned all night and I dreamed about her all night on the other.
None of the alternatives is wrong, in any usage, in any dialect. You should, however, try to be consistent in your spelling.
For Scientific english editing and Medical Writing Services visitwww.manuscriptedit.com

Perfect infinitives – (to) have done – are sometimes used unnecessarily after a past tense:
? I expected to have met you here at 6 o’clock.
The ‘pastness’ is already expressed in the word expected. So the likely meaning would be conveyed by I expected to meet you here at 6 o’clock. (The problem is that, out of context, such a sentence may be ambiguous. Does it mean that I was here at 6 o’ clock waiting for you but you failed to turn up? Or does it mean that we did indeed meet here at 6 o’ clock as arranged?)
At times, however, a perfect infinitive is not merely justifiable but even necessary – to convey something that is hypothetical or incorrect. Here are two examples:
I was very worried, because I was hoping to have heard my results by then (but I still hadn’t).
I believed the Brazilian to have won (but he didn’t).
For Scientific english editing and Medical Writing Services visitwww.manuscriptedit.com

Which should you say?
Margaret said I owe her 100 dollars. Margaret said I owed her 100 dollars.
Traditional grammar, based on Latin, has taught that the second is preferable. The rule for reported speech went like this: if the main verb is past, the verb in the reporting clause must be too.
For English this simple is not correct. Certainly owed is fine example above, but – supposing I still do owe Margaret the 100 dollars – the form owe is perfectly acceptable.
In fact, there is a slight difference of emphasis between the two sample sentences. The first emphasizes the fact of owing; the second the fact of saying so. Things that are still considered to be true are likely to be reported by a present tense, and vice versa:
Copernicus discovered that the Earth went/goes round the Sun. Ptolemy believed that the Sun went round the Earth.
For Scientific english editing and Medical Writing Services visitwww.manuscriptedit.com

Do you lie in on Saturday mornings, or lay in? Do you lay the rug on the floor, or lie it? People often use the verb to lay for to lie (and occasionally to lie for to lay). But in Standard English the two verbs are quite distinct.
To lay is almost always transitive – that is, it takes a direct object, or occurs in the passive. Its primary meaning is ‘to cause (something or someone) to lie down, to place (something or someone) in a stationary or reclining position’: Please lay the fish knives to the right of the butter knives; Please lay the rug down over the titles: the Broad is laying down guidelines for staff to follow in emergencies like this. Sometimes, to lay is used in an extended sense: to lay the table; to lay a ghost; to lay the blame on someone; Now I lay me down to sleep. And in two exceptional cases, it can be used intransitively: The hens won’t lay until the storm subsides; The ship is laying aft.
To lie means primarily ‘to recline, to be positioned on a flat surface, or to move into such a position’. It is always intransitive in Standard English – that is, it takes no direct object.
The chief reason for the confusion between to lay and to lie is that the past of to lie is lay: We lay in the grass all morning; Mountains lay to the north, impenetrable swamps to the south. But, the other forms of the two verbs are always different: lie, lay, lain, lying, lies; and lay, laid, laid, laying, lays.
For Scientific english editing and Medical Writing Services visitwww.manuscriptedit.com