It may, on a different note, be remarked that many of the ambiguities that occur in a acc+inf clause such as the ones benissimus supplied can be avoided by rendering such a clause passive. You might, e. g., render "vir dixit se amare feminam" into "vir dixit feminam a se amari". Of course,
strictly speaking "se" may still refer to either "vir" (and being thus indirectly reflexive) or "feminam" (in which case it is directly reflexive), but the amount of possible translations at least has been reduced from three to two (providing I didn't miss any

):
-"vir dixit se amare feminam"
1. The man said he loved the woman.
2. The man said the woman loved him(self).
3. The man said the woman loved herself.
In the passive rendition, it is at least clear that the
object (not in a syntactical sense) of "the love" is the woman, not the man. Only the subject (again, not in the syntactical sense) "(a) se" is left somewhat in the dark, yet even that ambiguity seems diminished. One is more likely to interpret "se" as referring to "vir".