What is the etymology of **model**? The answer is of course pre-WWW, but the better part of an hour in the library searching both classic model theory and modal logic textbooks turned up nothing. Every book I touched, without exception, *uses* the word in the usual way - a structure consistent with some theory - but of course gives no justification for it.


I say 'of course' because, given the word's common meaning of 'a representation of something', 
phrases like 'model theory', 'canonical model', etc. are quite jarring.


To my great relief, a couple of books commented on this jarring nature (it's not only me!) but I am genuinely curious as to who was the first person to use model to mean 'consistent structure', and even more curious as to *why they did so*.


**Summary:**


Thanks one and all for your comments! I've come to realize that I simply had the 'mathematical model' usage of the word etched into my brain, but the past couple of days spent reading 'model' as '(toy) model' have jolted me into agreeing that perhaps 'model' is a reasonable choice of term after all. I still feel (perhaps wrongly, I'm not an expert in model theory) that a word like *cast* or *casting* (as in *a die-casting*) would be better;
it conveys a sense of fitting (satisfying) some mould (theory) while still being short and a little light hearted like 'model'. But that is just me, and thanks to the comments here, I think that 'model' is quite good enough.



What is the etymology of model?
I'm sure the origin of the term is quite complex. Indeed, as Henry and David have pointed out, it is a very natural choice in this context.


I think the first *definition* of 'model' (not the first *use*) in the exact sense currently used in model theory is due to Tarski in *O pojȩciu wynikania logicznego* (*On the concept of following logically*; English translation [MR1951812](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1951812); German [translation](http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k38370h/f12.image.r=.langFR) from Polish by Tarski himself). This is the paper where the current definition of logical consequence first appears:



> 
> We say that the sentence $X$ *follows logically* from the sentences of the class
>  $\mathfrak{K}$ if and only if every model of the class $\mathfrak{K}$ is at the same time a model of the sentence $X$. [Translation by M. Stroinska and D. Hitchcock.]
> 
> 
> 


I don't know much about Tarski's choice of terms here, but the commentary to the English translation by M. Stroinska and D. Hitchcock could be enlightening.


It is interesting to note that Tarski published his paper in 1936, half a decade after Gödel's *Die Vollständigkeit der Axiome des logischen Funktionenkalküls* (*The completeness of the axioms of the functional calculus of logic*; [MR1549799](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1549799)). So it appears that these ideas were already known to members of the [Vienna Circle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Circle) and affiliates.


