What is the correct way to indicate a state which lasted before an action?

Question

I have difficulty understanding the usage of the English Past Tenses. Here's the first sentence and a picture which shows the state and the action in time:

I was kind to them for a month before I became angry.

Is this sentence grammatically and logically correct?

1. Doesn't it require the Past Perfect tense for the main clause to indicate that the state precedes the action?
2. Is the Past Perfect tense optional (not necessary)?
3. Or is it just grammatically incorrect to use the Past Perfect tense here, like this: "I had been kind to them for a month before I became angry"?

Another example:

I had (already) been hungry for 3 hours when she fed me.

And my last question:

Would it be correct and mean the same, if it were like this: "I was (already) hungry for 3 hours when she fed me"?

Answer 1

"I was kind to them for a month before I became angry" and "I had been kind" are both possible in this case because of the word "before". This makes it clear that the being kind took place before the becoming angry. The past perfect is not necessary, but in written language the past perfect looks good and you will find it in literature. Because "before"is used, it is also possible to use a duration "for a month" with the past simple.

In your second example this is not the case, "I had been hungry for 3 hours when she fed me" doesn't use "before" but "when". At the time in the past when you were fed you had been hungry for 3 hours, so the time you became hungry was even further in the past. Here the past perfect is necessary and not optional. You can't say "I was hungry for 3 hours when she fed me". It is possible for a future tense: "I will be hungry for 3 hours before she feeds me", or without a duration: "I was hungry when she fed me".

By the way: I assume you are an adult and not a small child, you don't need a woman to feed you or cook for you, you can do that yourself.