... my dream was not realised/fulfilled

Either one is acceptable. I would think that most English speakers would use fulfilled, but once again, either one works just fine.

Many thanks, Setanta.

Or,

... my dream did not come true.

Well, if you had a boy I'd say your dream was fulfilled.

If not it was not realised

Unless including "not" in the bold was a mistake, the two phrasings mean the exact oposite of eachother

But anyway, Set says both words are acceptable. But there has to be some difference in their meaning, doesn't it, since there are two words?

The 'not' applies to both words.

I think we all assumed that. I was just having a little fun before asking my question.

Not necessarily. English is a bitch like that.

I see.
I have always had the impression that no two words mean precicely the same. I can't think of two words that mean precicely the same, even though I can think of many words that have meanings that are so similar that the difference is negligible in most contexts. But english isn't my first language, so this impression may just be something I have transferred from my understanding of the norwegian language.

In fact, reiteration is a signal trait in Anglo-Saxon, and therefore in Engliish. So, for example, you'll encounter ceremonial phrases such as "it is fitting and proper," in which the two words mean exactly the same thing, and they are repeated for emphasis.

Another aspect of this is the habit of English in borrowing words. So, for example, in the United States, you have a word, gulch, which means a naturally occurring ditch, usually created by flood waters, especially in the spring. In the southwest of the United States, people often say arroyo, which means exactly the same thing, and was borrowed from Spanish. In the northwest of the United States (and in Louisiana and southern Mississippi), people often say coulee, which means exactly the same thing, and was borrowed from French.

English has an enormous vocabulary, because of this borrowing habit. It is inevitable that there will be many words which mean the same thing--either mean the same thing all the time, or mean the same thing in certain contexts. And it gratifies that lingering Anglo-Saxon penchant for repetition.

Thanks Set.
But based on which word that was used to describe a naturally occuring ditch, it is likely you could say something about where the describer comes from.

Gulch, arroyo and coulee mean exactly the same thing, but each of those words have additional meanings connected to them that are exclusive to that word. This doesn't exactly go against your point, since the history of a word normally isn't included in it's meaning. But it does offer the oportunity to communicate a more specific message by using one of the three words, or to draw additional information out of a statement.

Regarding realized/fulfilled, are there any contexts in which we could use the one and not the other? Are those words borrowed from different languages?

To me it seems that a meaningful distinctuon between the words might be the involvment of the speaker in the process he describes.
If I was talking about a plan I had, that I was now starting to work to put into action I would say that my plan is being realized. The realization is a process that happens because of my conscious effort.
If I talked about a dream I've had that comes to actually happen I would say that the dream was fulfilled. It happened without any effort on my part.
But I may be reading too much into the words. It seems though that I use them in this way, at least when writing, not neccesarily when reading.

Setanta explained this pretty well. Modern English (last 600 years?) borrowed freely from Greek, Roman, Old French, Norse, Old English etc etc and so it is no surprise that there is much duplication. A brief thumb through a thesaurus will serve quite well to illustrate that.

You're overanalyzing this, and you're missing the point. A denizen of the southwest, whether or not a native anglophone, is likely to say arroyo until corrected often enough to understand that the word is not current elsewhere. They mean the same thing--nobody gives a rat's ass for phony, two-bit philosophizing when it comes to their daily language. They know what they mean, thank you very much.

I think I understood your explanation, Setanta, and I do not dispute that the three words mean exactly the same thing.

I am just making the additional observation that even though some words have the same meanings, a little knowledge about the history of how the language has evolved can enable you to extract more information from those words, though perhaps not information directly relevant to what they communicate. And this information would perhaps be different for each of the words.
Should you feel so inclined, of course.

I think this goes for pretty much every language. We certainly have lots of it in the norwegian language.
A while back the authorities, in an effort to preserve the identity of our language, decided that an acceptable norwegian spelling for "pub", which has always been just "pub" was now "pøbb", which is how it would be spelled using the norwegian pronounciation of letters. But most people just write "pub".

I think that that's a pretty accurate statement, Cy.

coulee and gulch do not mean the same thing.

Hi JTT.

What are the differences?

A gulch has precipitous, often exposed sides due to its steepness and the result of flooding thru these steep areas. In this, gulches are similar in nature to arroyos.

A coulee can of course, be fairly steep but it usually refers to the entire broad area that begins the drop from the plains into a river valley. Coulees are normally pretty much vegetated though often it's quite sparse and sometimes certain marginally steep areas can be stripped of their vegetation in big flood years.

Often in very steep areas of the coulees, gulches will form and remain as gulches.

Here is a link to the Missouri Breaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Missouri_River_Breaks_National_Monument

And another google link to some shots of some coulees. They are the fourth hit.

Thanks JTT

Perhaps we can say then that these words are not identical in meaning, but that they are so similar that they are interchangable in most situations.

I remember an english teacher we had in school. It was the norwegian equivalent of college. The teacher was telling us how "would" and "could" mean the same thing and are completely interchangable. He wouldn't concede that he was wrong until after other english teachers had considered my objections to his statement.

Some time later the same teacher told us that there was no difference between an arrangement getting cancelled and postponed. Naturally, me being me, I had to speak up, and once again he had to admit he was wrong.

After that, the teacher had some issues with getting the studens in my class to believe in him when he taught us something. I can't decide wether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing.