I have been amused by the story of the appearance and disappearance of the “monolith” in the desert of southeastern Utah. But I have to take issue with the terms being used for it by The Tribune and other news organizations. As Jim Catano correctly stated in his letter to The Public Forum, a monolith (mono meaning “one”; lith meaning “stone”) does not describe it, nor does obelisk (a stone pillar with square or rectangular cross-section, according to the Oxford English Dictionary).
It is possibly a monument (commemorating a person or event) but, as we don’t know its purpose, that doesn’t work either. It isn’t a column (cylindrical, made of stone or concrete and supporting something).
So I suggest we call it what it is, an erection (the action of erecting a structure or object, a building or other upright structure), standing proudly in the Utah desert since 2016, and now missing in action.
Larry Coats, Salt Lake City