1

I'm looking to convey the internal uniformity and indivisibility of an object.

I like that monolithic means both 'uniform' and 'indivisible,' but I don't want to imply 'large size.'

Homogeneity implies that the object is composed of other smaller objects. I don't want to do that either.

9
  • I could be wrong, but I think your analysis is pretty thorough. I don't think you're going to find another, MORE appropriate word. I agree that monolithic has certain implication and I'd be likely to go with "uniform and indivisible".
    – Jeremy
    Commented Feb 6, 2014 at 23:40
  • 1
    Integrated circuits (microchips) are also referred to as "monolithic". In this case, size does not matter. Other monolithic electronic components exist, too (digikey.com/Web%20Export/Supplier%20Content/Murata_490/PDF/…) and the term "monolithic" is very common in this regard. Commented Feb 6, 2014 at 23:49
  • If you are talking about organizations, any referrence to size in the definition of monolithic is specious. A small family operated business can be considered monolithic, for example. Commented Feb 6, 2014 at 23:55
  • Can you include an example of what you visualize as could be both indivisible and homogeneous at the same time? There is unlikely to be a term for the combination because such an entity is just as unlikely, or at least defies logic.
    – Kris
    Commented Feb 7, 2014 at 7:07
  • 1
    I find your analysis a bit strange, actually. If an object is indivisible, how can you compare two parts of it and find that they are uniform with each other?
    – Dolda2000
    Commented Feb 8, 2014 at 6:37

2 Answers 2

4

I'm not sure I agree with your issue with homogeneity; some senses mean that the all the parts of the object are the same, others that there are no smaller parts (atomic, at least in the classical sense). For example homogeneous radiation has only one wavelength rather than a mix. Further, even if the senses that relate to parts suggest such uniformity that you can't meaningfully distinguish between them, so I would suggest homogeneous over your objections.

Monolithic likewise doesn't always suggest a large size, such as in monolithic kernels. I'd agree that it can in a lot of cases though.

Consonant is another possibility.

If it truly can't be split in any way, then atomic entails such consistency among the other traits.

4
  • 1
    "Megalithic" is the term that implies a large size. "Monolithic" just means 'one rock', or in a single piece.
    – Oldcat
    Commented Feb 7, 2014 at 0:34
  • @Oldcat yes, but in both literal and figurative use it does more often get used for large things; after all it's not really remarkable that a small pebble is a single rock, while it is that Uluru or the Rock of Gibraltar are. Some figurative uses don't strongly suggest large size—I suggested monolithic kernels above—though even they could be thought of as such compared to microkernels.
    – Jon Hanna
    Commented Feb 7, 2014 at 0:39
  • in the case of a kernel the essential feature is the singleness of the kernel, not its size. Old Unix had a small kernel, compiled into a single executable, thus monolithic.
    – Oldcat
    Commented Feb 7, 2014 at 0:55
  • @Oldcat yes, hence my giving it as an example of a small monolithic thing; that said, a comparable microkernel will have smaller parts (whether it's actually smaller or not depends on just what bit's you define as equivalent).
    – Jon Hanna
    Commented Feb 7, 2014 at 1:34
2

I just looked up 'monolithic' in Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus, and could find no suggestion of 'internal uniformity' nor of 'indivisibility'.

The thesaurus suggests the following synonyms: colossal,giant,gigantic,immovable,impenetrable, imposing, intractable, massive, monumental, solid, substantial, undifferentiated, undivided, unitary.

My sense is that you are barking up the wrong tree with 'monolithic'. Why not say something like 'indivisibly uniform'?

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .