I would use 3 if the person has arrived somewhere.
I couldn't get this, if someone is missing, how could we possibly be knowing that they have arrived somewhere?
I think I can get what Tdol meant. Let's say everyone is at work and Mr X definitely arrived at work that day. Then there is a fire alarm and everyone has to leave the building. Someone is responsible for checking that everyone in the office has made it out safely so they call people by name. When they get to Mr X, there is no reply. However, everyone knows he was definitely in the building. After checking several times, the checker can say "Mr X is missing", meaning "He is not here and I don't know where he is".
What I infer from your example is a confirmation of the very reason which was behind my question. And my inference is that Mr. X arrived anywhere but here. So, when someone's whereabouts is not know (let's say, for 24hrs to be officially called "missing"), others don't know where they might be, thus where they may have arrived is out of question. Ok, I know that when someone gets Y(an unknown place) from X(the last seen place), yes ,they arrived Y, but I don't think people talk about the missing persons arriving places, people talk about where they are. But if you think what Tdol( a native-speaker) said sounds natural to you (also a native-speaker),
then my reasoning has some flaws, and I'd be happy if you show me where in my reasoning they may be.
I couldn't get this, if someone is missing, how could we possibly be knowing that they have arrived somewhere?
This use of 'know' in the progressive tense doesn't sound colloquial at all.I couldn't get this, if someone is missing, how could we possibly be knowing that they have arrived somewhere?
If you have a question about the English language and would like to ask one of our many English teachers and language experts, please click the button below to let us know: