[Grammar] Do these sentences have the same meaning?

jay2 said:

Hello guys~

Here are three sentences.
1. There were tall trees surrounding the lake.
2. There were tall trees which surrounded the lake.
3. There were tall trees which were surrounding the lake.

Are they grammatically correct?
If so, do they have the same meaning?
I'm looking foward to your answers.

Click to expand...

anhnha said:

I wonder why #2 and #3 have the same meaning as they use different tenses.
2. There were tall trees which surrounded the lake.
3. There were tall trees which were surrounding the lake.

Click to expand...

MikeNewYork said:

They have the same meaning because trees don't move. [...]

Click to expand...

Raymott said:

Trees moved in Macbeth.
"Macbeth shall never vanquished be, until Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill Shall come against him." And it happened.
Whether one sentence means the same as another depends on several things: the context (including stylistic issues), your definition of 'meaning' and 'same', and how pedantic you want to be.
I'd like to know more about the reason for the OP's question. Was he told that one sentence was wrong in a certain context? If he's told that they mean the same thing, will he assume that any one will do in a certain situation?

Click to expand...

jay2 said:

Let's say trees are controlled by a magical power in a fairy tale. So, the trees can move.
In this situation, #1,2 and 3 still have the same meaning?

Click to expand...