"I'd" or "I" on the bold? Which tense is better?

@Andrew Van Wagner posted:

I used my Russian in numerous countries when assessing Soviet diplomats for potential defection, but I never actually went to the USSR, although I visited post-USSR Russia after I’d retired.

Hi, Andrew—Both tenses (the simple past or the past perfect) are correct there. The past perfect is simply unnecessary, because "after" communicates that the the speaker's visiting of post-USSR Russia happend after the thing in the "after"-clause (the speaker's retiring).

Similarly, the past perfect is unnecessary in "I had retired before I visited post-USSR Russia." We can simply say, "I retired before I visited post-USSR Russia, because "before" communicates that the speaker's retiring happened before the thing in the "before"-clause (the speaker's visiting of post-USSR Russia).

Thanks! Weird how there's no semantical difference?

I'll just go with this?

although I visited post-USSR Russia after retiring.

@Andrew Van Wagner posted:

Weird how there's no semantical difference?

The past perfect is redundant; that's why there's no difference. The subordinating conjunction/preposition communicates the temporal sequence all by itself. If you use the past perfect, you're just communicating it twice over.

@Andrew Van Wagner posted:

I'll just go with this?

although I visited post-USSR Russia after retiring.

Sure, you can use a nonfinite clause instead. Notice that the same principle applies. It would be redundant to use the nonfinite perfective auxiliary "having." That is, "after retiring" means the same thing as "after having retired."

Thanks! I appreciate the help on this front!

"The past perfect is redundant"

So what's the point of it?

@Andrew Van Wagner posted:

"The past perfect is redundant"

So what's the point of it?

I meant that the past perfect is often redundant in a context in which a past-time sequencing adverbial, such as "after" or "before," is in play. There are other contexts in which the past perfect is genuinely needed (not redundant):

• When I visited post-USSR Russia, I had retired.

Notice that that sentence cannot do without "had." If you instead said, "When I visited post-USSR Russia, I retired," the sentence would indicate that you retired at the time at which you visited post-USSR Russia, NOT before that time.

Thanks! That makes sense; it's sometimes redundant but not always.