The State standard of Ukraine has developed and introduced DSTU 3966 "Principles and rules of terms standards development and definition of concepts" , which gives recommendations for creating the new ones and revision of the current terms for designating actions, events and consequences of events according to the rules corresponding to the structure of the Ukrainian language. In particular, according to one of these rules, mentioned in the standard: "Usually1 one indicates the action using verbal nouns with the suffix -nnia formed from the imperfective verbs …, event – using verbal nouns with suffix -nnia formed from the perfective verbs …, whereas objects – using corresponding one-root nouns with other suffixes or without them such as: isolation, classification, rotation, bending, equipment" [1, p.14]. It is important that one applies the rules of creating terms in all areas of activity. Therefore, there was a need to analyze whether philosophical terminology (in particular, the terminology of epistemology) corresponds to the above-mentioned recommendations, and in case of any discrepancies some ways of eliminating them had to be found. .
Because of the fact that the compliance of the vast majority of terms in the theory of cognitive activity with the recommendation of the standard has not been studied, the aim of this article is to analyze this segment.
We have selected the following list of terms for analysis: to argue, to define, to invent, to reflect, to feel, to believe, to prove, to experiment, to classify, to objectify, to cognize, to make mistakes, to sense, to represent, to understand, to systematize, to observe, to subjectivize, to doubt, to theorize, to arrange, to realize, to imagine, to search.
We created a set of related terms for each of the above words, in accordance with the recommendations of DSTU 3396 on the creation of terms denoting actions, events and consequences of events. Regarding sets of received terms the following remarks should be made. As a result of changing the selected terms in order to meet the requirements of DSTU 3966, there was a need to introduce a large number of new words, most of which are verbal nouns denoting events. Some part of these terms does not meet the requirements of euphony. In view of this, it may be useful to introduce an additional recommendation on the expediency of creating terms denoting accomplished action in an analytical way: in all cases we take the term denoting consequences of the event as the noun part of the complex terms. At the very least, this will make it possible to significantly reduce the number of new words.
In support of this recommendation, we can also give the following argument: speech that contains a lot of nouns ending in -nnia is inaccurate, because "they have an homonymous form in the nominative, accusative and vocative cases of singular and plural, and even in genitive singular case. "Although it is usually impossible to do without them, and it is not necessary, it is clear2 that we must try to reduce the number of terms ending in –nnia as much as possible" [2, p.40].
Based on the performed research, one can state the following. An introduction of additional recommendation to determine events in an analytical way (not instead of the existing recommendation for the creation of event names in the form of verbal nouns from perfective verbs, but along with this recommendation) will insignificantly increase the noun component in terminology, but will also facilitate the introduction of the standard.