Can a word be both an object and a subject in a clause?

[sitifan]

https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/326861/can-a-word-be-both-an-object-and-a-subject-in-a-clause#:~:text=No, in general a word,a subject and an object.&text=In your sentence, "that",it functions as a subject.
Andrew looked at the coffin and tried to remember who was inside it. It was a man—he was sure of that. But, horrifyingly, the name escaped him. He thought he'd narrowed it down to either John or James, but Jake had just made a late bid for consideration. It was inevitable, he supposed, that this had happened. He'd been to so many of these funerals it was bound to at some point, but that didn't stop him from feeling an angry stab of self-loathing. If he could just remember the name before the vicar said it, that would be something. There was no order of service, but maybe he could check his work phone. Would that be cheating? Probably. Besides, it would have been a tricky enough maneuver to get away with in a church full of mourners, but it was nearly impossible when the only other person there apart from him was the vicar. Ordinarily, the funeral director would have been there as well, but he had e-mailed earlier to say he was too ill to make it. Unnervingly, the vicar, who was only a few feet away from Andrew, had barely broken eye contact since he'd started the service. Andrew hadn't dealt with him before. He was boyish and spoke with a nervous tremor that was amplified unforgivingly by the echoey church. (My bold.)
Source: Something to Live For, by Richard Roper, pages 1-2.

Is the subject "it" also the object of "with" in the clause in bold?

 

[wrestlingpaint]

Besides, it would have been a tricky enough maneuver to get away with in a church full of mourners, ...

Is the subject "it" also the object of "with" in the clause in bold?

Getting away with it in a church full of mourners would have been difficult enough, but it was practically impossible when the vicar was the only other person present.

 

[emsr2d2]

Getting away with it in a church full of mourners would have been difficult enough, but it was practically impossible when the vicar was the only other person present.

Welcome, @wrestlingpaint

Your explanation of the meaning of the sentence in bold is very clear but the OP had a very specific question about the subject "it".

 

[jutfrank]

The answer to the general question that's the title of the thread is no.

 

[sitifan]

The answer to the general question that's the title of the thread is no.

What is the object of the preposition "with"?

 

[jutfrank]

I'm going to guess what you're asking.

a tricky enough manoeuvre to get away with
=
a tricky enough manoeuvre with which to get away

In this reformulation, the pronoun which, which is co-referent with the head of the previous noun phrase manoeuvre, is a complement of the preposition with.

If you're asking something about the meaning rather than the grammar: Andrew is wondering whether he can get away with checking his phone in a church full of people. This is described as "a tricky manoeuvre" because he will have to try to do it without anyone noticing.

 

[sitifan]

Getting away with it in a church full of mourners would have been difficult enough, but it was practically impossible when the vicar was the only other person present.

What does "it" refer to?

 

[Tarheel]

What does "it" refer to?

He wants to check his phone (for messages, I guess), but he doesn't want to be notified doing it. That's the "it" being referred to.

 

[emsr2d2]

He wants to check his phone (for messages, I guess), but he doesn't want to be notified doing it. That's the "it" being referred to.

Are you sure you mean "notified"? It strikes me it should probably have been "noticed".

 

[emsr2d2]

What does "it" refer to?

The act of checking his work phone.

 

[Annabel Lee]

. . . maybe he could check his work phone. Would that be cheating? Probably. Besides, it would have been a tricky enough maneuver to get away with in a church full of mourners . . .

Is the subject "it" also the object of "with" in the clause in bold?

Yes, that's how I read it. You're seeing what many linguists call Tough Movement. From a derivational standpoint, the subject pronoun "it" (in surface structure) is also (underlyingly) the object of "get away with." Similarly, "Checking his work phone" would be both subject and object in "Checking his work phone would have been hard to get away with." With antipatory "it," we'd have "It would have been hard for him to get away with checking his work phone," which in turn could be rephrased as "For him to get away with checking his work phone would have been hard." Please note that, to simplify things, I've changed the noun phrase "a tricky maneuver" to the adjective "hard."

 

[Tarheel]

Are you sure you mean "notified"? It strikes me it should probably have been "noticed".

Dang! I missed that.