In spite of their resemblance to nonrestrictive relative clauses, supplementive clauses need not be separated from their matrix clause intonationally when they occur in final position. The following are therefore alternative renderings of the same sentence, differing only in that [1] has two focuses of information, whereas [2] has only one:
One result of the alternative shown in [2] is the possible neutralization of the formal difference between nonfinite clauses functioning as supplementive clauses and those functioning as complementation of the verb. Thus [3] is ambiguous :
I saw Pam going home. [3]
On one interpretation (that of the supplementive clause), I is the implied subject of going home, whereas on the other (that of verb complementation), Pam is the overt subject.
(more on page 569, Comprehensive_Grammar_of_....)
https://books.google.com/books?id=VyLMjVD7AeAC&lpg=PA539&dq=english%20grammar%20%22saying%20that%22&pg=PA539#v=onepage&q=english%20grammar%20%22saying%20that%22&f=false
[quote]
16.1.11 The participial construction with a 'ghost' verb
At times one and the same action is described twice ...
Next they drank[real], absorbing [imaginary] water like ....
I spoke to him in Welsh, and he answered in English, saying that ...
----
e.g. ... issued a warning .... , saying that ....
I sailed from Bombay on November 11th, arriving a month later in England.
Source: Longman Language Activator
"sailed" and "arriving" not at the same time. (one follows the other)
