Dear BJ:

You wrote:

> hello; you proved to have answers to almost
> every grammar question that i had, so there is another
> challenge: i am a traditionalist as far as use of time
> linkers such as ‘before’ and ‘after’ is concerned – i
> use simple past + past perfect construction; but in
> recently published by longman grammar books i found
> that it’s ok to use simple past + simple past
> combination; i’m very confused about it, since those
> books don’t offer any explanation when it’s
> grammatically correct to use one or the other
> combination; is there any grammar rule that i can rely
> on in distinguishing when to use them? regards and
> hoping to hear from you soon; baba jaga;
>
>
Either way is fine depending on the relationship beween the two clauses. Generally, if the main clause is in the past, the subordinate clause would be in the past unless you had a specific reason to do otherwise.

For example, “Before I went to bed, I walked my dog.” Both actions are in the past, and this is standard in most cases. You could say, “Before I went to bed, I had walked my dog.” That suggests not only was the action of walking the dog completed, but that you wanted to emphasize the action for some reason–either because the timing was crucial (as in a court testimony) or it was something that you usually did not do.

Longmans has become the standard text in much of the world for teaching English as a second language. While they are British and do reflect British pronunciation and spelling, the grammar in all but a few rare cases is the same for both British and North American English.