In grammatical theory, for theories based on hierarchical tree structure, No, because presumably grammatical functions correspond to the descending lines of a tree diagram, and no two lines can converge, allowing a single item to be the daughter of two different mothers. I know of two theories which do not require strictly hierarchical trees and which do allow a single item to have two different functions.
One is Relational Grammar (and Arc Pair Grammar), proposed by Paul Postal, David Perlmutter, and others. However, although it is proposed in this theory that some tree branches converge, I don't know that evidence has been given that this is actually so.
The other is McCawley's variety of transformational grammar, described in his textbook The Syntactic Phenomena of English, which includes an explicit account of a modified phrase structure theory that sanctions converging (and crossing) tree branches. Specifically, McCawley proposes that the raised node of right-node-raising (RNR) constructions simultaneously has grammatical functions in both of the conjuncts to its left. So, for instance, in
John built, and I installed the stove of, the new kitchen.
the raised constituent "the new kitchen" is simultaneously the direct object of "built" and object of the preposition "of".
McCawley does give some evidence for his theory of RNR constructions that is based on how the CNPC constraint works in some rather complicated examples, which I cannot recall in detail.
You are right in thinking that OSV is a construction that changes the emphasis of the sentence. To demonstrate:
1: Do you like pasta?
2: Not really.
1: How about pizza?
2: Now that I like!
This is a feature of language called "Topic-fronting" that can occur in many languages. As you can see from the example the focus of the sentence is moved to the object "that". In this case, it also stresses that the response is different from the one that preceded it. In English, it's often used this way e.g
I despise most German composers, but Mozart I like!
I'll also add that the usage of OSV in English is mostly idiomatic. Limited to certain contexts and can come across as strange if overused in ordinary language. The most common context in which I see it used are contexts in which it might be appropriate to say something like "Now you're talking!". It carries a connotation of slight oratorical flair that might not be appropriate for, say, a dreary business meeting.
I should add that your example:
Making excuses for lying politicians does not an honest man make.
Is not an example of OSV topic fronting at all. In fact, what you've got is SVOS. Your sentence has two verbs. So perhaps a different example might be in order.
Making excuses makes an honest man.
This example is simply the standard SVO. Compare:
Making excuses an honest man makes.
This is a clear example of SOV, however, I doubt it would occur anywhere asides deliberately poetic or archaic-sounding language. On the other hand, the expression:
X does not a Y make.
Is also very idiomatic in English, and its use is almost exclusively restricted to sentences involving the verbs "to do" and "to make" plus a negation, although other verbs are possible. In many ways, the SOV formation is the very opposite of OSV, as it draws attention away from the object and places it on the verb. However, similarly, SOV is sometimes used to draw attention to the fact that what was said previously is now being contradicted. e.g
1: The expensive school my children attend should ensure they grow up to be gentlemen.
2: Expensive schools do not a gentleman make.
As before, I'd be wary of overusing these phrases if you're not a native speaker. They're highly situational, and if you overuse them you risk sounding pretentious.
Best Answer
Moving an element to the front of a clause (often in order to emphasise it) is, quite logically, called fronting.
This is different from inversion (as mentioned in tchrist’s answer) in that inversion usually is not optionally chosen for emphasis, but a mandatory part of various syntactic processes. Questions, for example, normally require subject-auxiliary inversion, as do certain fronted adverbs.
That's not to say the two are entirely unrelated, though. In fact, it used to be that fronting and inversion were quite closely related phenomena: the verb in Germanic languages like English historically tended to like being in second position (the word order is SVO), and in order to keep the verb in that position when fronting some non-subject element, the subject would have to be moved to a position after the verb—in other words, the subject and the verb were inverted. Very frequently, the fronted element would be an object, but it could be just about anything.
In most other Germanic languages, inversion is still the rule when fronting elements, but English has (perhaps under influence from French which employs inversion in a very limited way) gradually abandoned the system: in current English, it is more common for fronted elements to simply be considered outside the clause itself and often set off by a comma. The clause itself can then retain its regular word order.
To give a few examples (word order in parentheses; A is ‘adverbial’; fronted element italicised):
In languages like German or Swedish (or indeed some older stages of English), these would be:
– but of course that doesn't work in current English. For an English example, you have to go back in time, for example to William Shakespeare:
Here the subject predicate villain is fronted to the start of the sentence, with subsequent inversion of the subject and the verb.
What hasn't changed in modern English is that elements can be emphasised by moving them to the head (front) of their clause, that is, by fronting them.
Unlike Arabic, though, moving an element to the end of a clause is not a tactic used for emphasising in English; I am not aware of any word for that.