Should I invert the bold to eliminate ambiguity?

Hi, Andrew—Yes, that reordering is called for if you want to ensure that readers will not understand "generate tax revenue" as "help generate tax revenue."

Thanks! Regarding the below, can you say that X is supposed to help generate tax revenue? You can say that X is supposed to generate tax revenue, but why would you say that X is supposed to help generate tax revenue?

the projects were supposed to help modernize Sri Lanka and generate tax revenue

@Andrew Van Wagner posted:

. . . can you say that X is supposed to help generate tax revenue? You can say that X is supposed to generate tax revenue, but why would you say that X is supposed to help generate tax revenue?

We would say that X is supposed to help generate tax revenue if it were intended to assist in the creation of tax revenue, wouldn't we?

What is the semantical daylight between "X helped generate tax revenue" and "X generated tax revenue"?

What is the difference between "X set the table" and "X helped set the table?"

I completely reject that analogy.

I don't think that it's relevant.

Different things generate tax revenue. They can all be viewed as helpers in the generation of tax revenue or as generators of tax revenue. It makes no difference. If they are viewed as helpers, the analogy holds, the difference being merely that generation of tax revenue can go on indefinitely, whereas there comes a time, not very long after table-setting is started, when a table is set.

Wasn't my interviewee's meaning definitely such that I should carry out the inversion? How could my interviewee have intended any other meaning?

Personally, I would keep the sentence as is. Modernization seems to me to be closer to the concept of work execution, and tax revenue generation should come later, once the works in question (office buildings, roads, bridges, airports) are operative.

It's a semantical issue, right?

I think so.

Thanks!