Relative Pronoun

[wotcha]

Is it possible to say - or write

"I employed the man, whose left leg was hurt"

instead of

"I employed the man whose left leg was hurt"

[Raymott]

Is it possible to say - or write

"I employed the man, whose left leg was hurt"

instead of

"I employed the man whose left leg was hurt"

No, it isnt.

[wotcha]

No, it isnt.

Anyhow, is the first sentence grammatically correct?

[Rover_KE]

"I employed the man whose left leg was hurt."

That sounds OK to me.

You don't need a comma but you do need a full stop.

Rover

[Raymott]

Anyhow, is the first sentence grammatically correct?

No.
"I employed the man, whose left leg was hurt." is not a grammatically correct sentence.
Your second sentence is correct if you put a period on the end, as Rover says.
The dependent clause "whose left leg was hurt" is defining/restrictive. It can't function as a non-defining clause in this sentence.

However, both of the following are correct:
"The man whose left leg was hurt was given a job." defining; says which man was given a job
"The man, whose left leg was hurt, was given a job." non-defining; adds information.

[philo2009]

No.
"I employed the man, whose left leg was hurt." is not a grammatically correct sentence.

I'm afraid I must disagree with Raymott here. There is nothing remotely ungrammatical about the sentence, as illustrated by the following:

A man came to me asking for a job every day for a week. In the end, I employed the man, whose left leg was hurt (although I never felt able to ask asked him how the injury had occurred).

Naturally, if we wished to distinguish the man in question from other men in terms of his injured leg, then the more appropriate sentence would be

I employed the man whose left leg was hurt.

but that does not in any way render the alternative ungrammatical!

[Raymott]

I'm afraid I must disagree with Raymott here. There is nothing remotely ungrammatical about the sentence, as illustrated by the following:

A man came to me asking for a job every day for a week. In the end, I employed the man, whose left leg was hurt (although I never felt able to ask asked him how the injury had occurred).

Naturally, if we wished to distinguish the man in question from other men in terms of his injured leg, then the more appropriate sentence would be

I employed the man whose left leg was hurt.

but that does not in any way render the alternative ungrammatical!

Yes, you're right. The syntax is correct. As an isolated sentence, it's probably not useable for reasons such as you point out. But I was wrong saying it was ungrammatical.