eng
Hartogh's quote knows us so far by Gode Molsbergen, viz. In his summary of the travel report. It is understood that Steenbok River, certainly Kleinsteenbok River, had a Khoekhozen name and who was held for us, on eg. The same way that the Baastuine Hartogh also moved other inland names to oblivion. So others understand the quotation, unfortunately we do not know the story of Hartogh in its original wording and in its entirety. So the Sepp in TRESORI, the reasoned register on the works of the LV Parts 1-25 (1939, p. 155), 'Gam Dachama, Hottentots name of the Steenbokken-riv.' Pettman, eg. 1921 SAJS 17 347, and 1931 SAPN 38, further Du Plessis 1973 investigates 316 and others take it up. But no one explains the Gamdachama. The reason is also clear, viz. The problem of lying the relationship between the old name of the river and the old preserved names for the Capricorn (cf. the names in Old Cape as recorded in Hott 467-9); It is not so easy. Steenbok is in Nama in the return of Rust 1960 DNW 59 Lari, in Old Cape it was o.a. Godema, Gauda etc. With Lari, no mortgage is, with Gauda, after us. If the member -Chama is properly identified as Nama ǀ ǀ Gami, Old-Cape Gamma or -Kamma = Water, River, then the member must match our 'Capricorn' in the translated form. The question is whether the Gamda has been rewritten here. Therefore, we would have liked to see the original. If the -m- a -w- and the Gamda- in fact was a Gawda, then it corresponded to Grevenbroek 1695's return for 'Capricorn' in Old Cape, viz. Gauda. We know that Molsbergen had trouble with Hartogh's handwriting, so he depreciated Hartogh's 'Oskamma' as 'Os Tribal' (cf. GM RZA 2 9.) If we can read Gamdachama as Gaw Dachama, with Gauda = Capricorn And -Chama as -Kamma = River, then it is also linguistically clear that the name Steenbok River is the old inland name in translated form.
afr
Hartogh se aanhaling ken ons tot hiertoe net deur Godee Molsbergen, nl. in sy opsomming van die reisberig. Daaruit word verstaan dat Steenbokrivier, bepaaldelik Kleinsteenbokrivier, ’n Khoekhoense naam gehad het en wat toevallig vir ons bewaar is, op bv. dieselfde wyse wat die baastuinier Hartogh ook ander inlandse name aan die vergetelheid ontruk het. So verstaan ook ander die aanhaling, ongelukkig ken ons nie die relaas van Hartogh in sy oorspronklike bewoording en in sy geheel nie. So se D Sepp in Tresoor, die beredeneerde register op die werke van die lV dele 1-25 (1939, bl. 155), 'Gam dachama, Hottentots-naam van de Steenbokken-riv.' Ook Pettman, bv. 1921 SAJS 17 347, en 1931 SAPN 38, verder Du Plessis 1973 Ondersoek 316 en ander vat dit so op. Maar niemand verklaar die Gamdachama nie. Die rede is ook duidelik, nl. die probleem om die verband tussen die ou naam van die rivier en die ou bewaarde name vir die steenbok te le (vgl. die name in Ou- Kaaps soos opgeteken in HOTT 467-9); dit is nie so maklik nie. Steenbok is vandag in Nama in die opgawe van Rust 1960 DNW 59 lari-, in Ou-Kaaps was dit o.a. godema, gauda ens. Met lari- is geen verband te le nie, met gauda-, na ons meen, wel. As die lid -chama reg geidentifiseer word soos Nama ǀ ǀgami, Ou-Kaaps -gamma of -kamma = water, rivier, dan moet die lid gamda- ooreenstem met ons 'steenbok' in die vertaalde vorm. Die vraag is of die gamda- hier reg oorgeskryf is. Daarom sou ons graag die oorspronklike wou gesien het. As die -m- ’n -w- was en die gamda- in feite ’n gawda- was, dan het dit ooreengestem met Grevenbroek 1695 se opgawe vir 'steenbok' in Ou- Kaaps, nl. gauda. Ons weet dat Molsbergen moeilikheid met Hartogh se handskrif gehad het, so het hy aanwysbaar Hartogh se 'Oskamma' afgeskryf as 'os stamma' (vgl. GM RZA 2 9.) As ons Gamdachama kan lees as Gaw- dachama, met gauda = steenbok en -chama as -kamma = rivier, dan is dit ook taalkundig duidelik dat die naam Steenbokrivier die ou inlandse naam in vertaalde vorm is.
