I am not trying to stir up a hornet's nest which seems to have a definition drawn up by experts.
In the case of Snijman/Snyman, we have a soldier who arrived at the Cape as a Snijder from Germany, who slept with a washerwoman to the point that he was sentenced to imprisonment on Robben Island, vs his offspring who gained the name from birth and passed on the name of his birth to his offspring.
In other words, I have two issues - firstly, did Hans Christoffel Snijder/Snijman even acknowledge his child (intentionality - we are after tlking about a progenitor) and secondly, did he himself actually use the name - if he laid no claim to it, how can we ascribe it to him).
Neither of Christoffel Snijman's parents used the surname from birth, and neither of them were born at the Cape.
My own sense is that Catharina van Paliacatta was damaged woman - she was in the Cape in reprieve for the murder of her rapist, she had various children by different fathers while still as slave, and then the father of her son gets banished to the nearby penal island... I am no forensic psychologist, but there is enough evidence here to make me wonder.
But this is my opinion and I respect the concept of process and definitions. Interesting that other genealogical sites have different positions on this matter, but use the same SV/SM/PROG suffixes...