What word to use for development with pawns?

Technically the word "development" refers only to pieces, not pawns. So what word should be used to describe the situation where one player has gotten ahead on tempi in the form of pawn moves?

Ahead in space I guess.

I mean, there's the space as in the number of squares influenced, and then there's space as in the number of safe squares behind your pawns potentially available for maneuvering / posting pieces.

 Although in the opening, with literally all your pieces on the back rank, space isn't such a critical thing to be ahead in 

pawn formations

 And white is ahead by 3 pawn formations.

No good answers, yet, sorry. Space is only a partial consequence of pawn moves, and may not be significant in itself, such as in a Hedgehog formation which has no pawns beyond the 3rd rank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog_(chess)). Similar for pawn formations, which are only a consequence of pawn motions, and are a spatial pattern, not a time measurement. I'm looking for a time measurement analogous to a piece count.

To be fair, I suspect no such term exists. (So I'll probably have to invent one.)

If it's not useful for evaluation, then why name it?

Are you serious? That's exactly why I want to name it: so I can refer to this common situation without using erroneous and misleading terminology. I encounter this specific terminology problem all the time, such as in the Sicilian after ...Nc6 Nxc6 ...bxc6, where Black gets ahead in "development", but does so with an extra pawn move, which technically is not "development." So what is it?

The thing is, you want piece activity - however pawns are not really "active" in themselves, since their positions are so static. When you "develop" a piece, it's because you greatly change the activity of that piece, and that's why this is a special idea. 

*Pawns are only a backup for piece activity*. 

A pawn is only really "active" when it's threatening promotion, or is in the opponent's territory controlling a critical square. 

When you develop a piece, you almost always can improve it. When you move pawns, these pawns are often weak and vulnerable, and it's not easy to tell.

So there exists no word for this as far as I know - and there shouldn't be one, in my opinion. 

There's a reason pawn moves are not counted as development

If you want to call it development though, maybe use "Development" (with a capital D) to denote pieces and a lower case d for the pawns.

In the Scicilian black often falls behind in development, but this isn't made up for by pawn moves per se, it's made up for by lack of targets for white's pieces.

I agree that there probably isn't such a word, since most likely I would have read about it by now, since I love to peruse chess glossaries, both online and in books. I disagree that it's not needed, though. If you let your opponent get ahead in tempi, and if he uses those tempi to play (for example) ...b6, ...g6, and ...d6, certainly you've let your opponent get a better position, since (as you mention) he's way ahead in allowing his pieces activity, but in *what* exactly is he ahead? "Tempi" is too general a word for the concept I want.

Ahead in development - if black has played those moves, then he/she can now develop bishops in one move (those bishops have also been activated by those pawn moves right away, long range), and later it will be visible on the board that black will have more pieces out than white. 

On the other hand, playing space gaining moves like f4 and c4 can be double-edged. 

No way, not even close to a safe statement. There are often as many bad things about a pawn move as good things. They are not moves like castling that are nearly always good, and when good have pretty much no drawbacks.

But let's say Black hasn't developed any pieces yet, only gotten ahead 3 tempi so that he has the *ability* to develop those pieces quickly, and also the ability to make completely safe 2-square pawn pushes. Black obviously isn't ahead in development of pieces, but also obviously has improved his position in some way for which we do not seem to have words to describe.

It sounds like you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. There's a name for people who do that online.

So you're saying it would be OK if we played a game and I were allowed to set up the board so that I've made the 3 preliminary moves b3, g3, and d3 before selecting my actual first move? Are you really saying that White would have no advantage in that case?

Oh, you mean if black got to move 3 times in a row in the initial position and made those (or some other) pawn moves?

There's an evaluation you see sometimes, that one side will be able to develop faster / more easily. I'd use that.

Yeah, I didn't get what you were saying at first.

But you may be surprised to know that if we paused our game at move 5 or 8 (or something in the opening), and I let you make 3 pawn moves, afterwards I might even evaluate your position as worse for the moves. Even innocuous or safe looking pawn moves can be endgame liabilities.

I don't remember seeing such a description before ("...will be able to develop faster"), but at least that's close to the concept I want to convey. That phrase would work, I guess, though it's a little verbose. Maybe one could use a modification of MaxDen's suggestion and say that "White is ahead in 3 Control Tempi"?

Or they'll say it for the other guy e.g. "white has trouble getting his pieces out"

Yeah, that's a mouthful. Knights and bishops off the back rank are almost always good. So much so we can just count the number of them to see who is better most of the time. But not all pawn moves will help a player develop faster. I guess that would be my criticism of giving it a name.

You know, lets let blacks 3 moves be c6, f6, and h6 and white may be close to winning

Or c6 f6 d6 and it's probably just equal... maybe I'd pick white.