No, the original is correct. The verb disappear is normally intransitive. Using it as a transitive verb actually is possible, but is non-standard. In other words, you don't disappear someone; they just disappear. When you use a verb in the passive voice, it must be a transitive verb.
In other words, if you say someone has been disappeared, you're using the passive voice. That tells us that something has been done to that person. So, if you say "Chris and Shan have been disappeared," my first question would be "Really? Who disappeared them?" This makes no sense, and the reason is simple: disappear is intransitive and so takes no object. No object, no passive voice.
On the other hand, if you said "Chris and Shan have been moved to another location," it would make perfect sense to ask "Who moved them?"Moving is something you can do to something or someone. It can be used as a transitive verb that takes an object, and that object becomes the subject in a passive voice sentence.
Here it is in a nutshell:
There are two kinds of verbs in English: transitive verbs that have an object (kick, hit, touch) and intransitive verbs that do not have an object (die, sleep, disappear).
When you form the passive voice, you must begin with an active sentence that has a transitive verb. For example:
The boy kicked the ball.
Ball is the object of the transitive verb kick.
Now, to form the passive voice, take that object and make it the new subject. Then follow it with the form of BE in the same verb tense as the main verb in the original sentence (in this example, kicked is past tense). Then follow that with the past participle of the original main verb.
The ball was kicked.
If you like, you can add "...by the boy," but it isn't necessary. But as you can see, if the main verb in the original sentence is intransitive and has no object, there's no way you can do this.
But examples like: chris have gone, chris have finished his work, chris has painted the wall. etc.
All these examples indicates that soemthing happend to chris(chris have gone), chris have done something( chris have finished his work, n painted wall).........all these indicate the act of chris....like they did something.......
Person name + have + 3rd form
Chris +have + finished his work
It indicates the acts by chris,,,,,,
But when we say:
Door has been painted, my keys has been stolen,
So in all these we use been with things like door, key etc. and use have +3rd form with person name only.....
so when we say:
Chris and shan have disappeared( is like chris and shan have painted the wall, have finished their work)..........is like chris and shan have disappeared to something.......like they disappeared something.......i know it doesn't make any sense,......but thats what it sounds like to me.......
Chris and shan have washed the clothes
Chris and shan have disappeared the clothes?........i know it makes no sense but i am just trying to exaplain how it sounds like to me .
Chris and shan have been disappeared............is like chris and shan is now disappeared( we can't see them anymore)......like keys has been stolen........
Plzzzzzzzzzzzzzz help meeeeeee.................m getting more confused n confuesd n confused................
But i think i should be::**chris and shan have been disappered.
Tell me which one is the correct one. According to me second one should be the correct one(chris and shan have been disappeared.)
The correct sentence is "Chris and Shan have disappeared".
The verb "disappear" is an intransitive verb, which means it does not take an object and therefore cannot be used with passive voice. It's not possible "to disappear someone or something"; therefore, individuals cannot "be disappeared".
The only thing similar to "Chris and Shawn have been disappeared" is the idea of "disappeared people". The phrase "disappeared people" is very unusual in English. It makes its appearance, most likely and in my opinion, as a direct translation from Spanish, "los desaperecidos" = "disappeared people". This refers to people who disappeared mysteriously.