My friend, you cannot ignore the Arab influence on the Somali language. Many words related to herding come from the Arabs, and do not forget that the Somalis took camels and goats And horses from the Arabs.
According to archeology, and all the explanatory power the inter-disciplinary anthropological knowledge corpus can equip us with, Somalis did not receive goats from Arabs. Cushitess brought Caprinae, coupled with Bovines from northeast Africa, modern Egypt, and Sudan, brought on by migration of our direct ancestors by demic diffusion, a people that had domesticates as early as Arabia, and even prior with regards to cattle, factoring in a strong indication of the independent domestication process, during pre-Neolithic Nubia.
The camel was in all assessed likelihood, rationally introduced, noting a cross-continental dispersion wave, no older than 3,000 years ago, from the Arabian Peninsula towards the Somali coast, northern Red Sea to Cushites and North Africa.
The horse, on the other hand, is a bit complicated. This animal was present in North Africa 3600 years ago. Viewing the appearance of the lack of evidence of old horse presence in the Ancient Horn of Africa, we can assume, the animal was introduced by one of the people we traded with. Measuring the relevant possibilities, attributing the emergence of the animal from an Arabian influence is not apparent. Complex and diversified trade connections make the origin of import for the beast less clear.
Prior to the domestication of the horse and the camel, the donkey served as the model for the first beast of burden for humanity. Our direct ancestors, that domesticated the donkey, gave the first-mover methodology that would later translate into using those ways to handle the wild camels and horses by proxy, as those phenomena happened thousands of years later.
I have already posted information about this topic, showing our ancestral association with domestication before the genetic evidence proved it correct. Now you have this fact as a consensus on the research/scholarly stage written in the books, casually:
There is one thing that is in error in the source. Namely, the notion that Cushites were in the Horn of Africa 7000 years ago. This is false. The descendants of the people that domesticated the donkeys, i.e., our ancestors, went to the Horn of Africa long after the domestication of the equid. Christopher Ehret -- a scholar I respect, mind you -- has a wrong picture of the expansion of Afro-Asiatic from Horn-proper and thinks Cushitic was a Horn of Africa-originated branch, applying this faulty formalist-diversification theory on the movement of language, inferring geographic source from those contextualized relational associations.