You're not going to get much feedback here about a paper written in Croatian, and we can't answer whether a journal will accept it or not, but here are some thoughts:
1. This is shorter than most journal articles. Some short notes about etymology might be accepted, but I don't know if that applies here. And usually those would be a relatively standard format and argument, which this is not.
2. The paper is trying to do two different things at once. In academic publishing, a focused paper is usually obligatory. On the one hand, you discuss the details of this etymology. On the other, the middle of the paper is a long tangent about probability of etymological relationships, which would belong in a different paper. You might be able to split this into two papers, or expand on this to organize it better and address these points in detail and somehow bring them together a single purpose, but right now for that reason I don't this would be published. (In general, you should not be developing a new methodology and also proposing a specific analysis in the same paper. Neither will be well supported, or well received.)
3. Part of the publishing process is getting feedback. If you haven't published before, then you should seek feedback from experts, not from people you don't know online (even if they know about linguistics in general). Find a mentor (for a graduate student, this would be your advisor, so you might look for someone who could be like that for you). Or as a first step, you should present this at a conference. Conferences are generally much easier to access than publication, and they're a great way to get feedback, and also to see what other people are working on, so you'll learn a lot. Right now, given the pandemic, many conferences are online (and many are free), so they've never been more accessible in a practical sense. If you have not yet presented at a conference, you should try that before trying to publish. That may open some doors to publication, also, either directly through a proceedings volume, or by feedback and networking.
4. The fundamental problem with this paper is that it is not research by strict definition: you don't cite any sources! You have some footnotes referring to your own work. But you don't have a bibliography or cite anything published. That is immediately a reason that most journals would reject this. And to be clear: I'm not suggesting you throw a few references into this now. Good scholarship is built around the literature review, and informed by it, not tangentially connected. That will also help you to understand whether your paper is similar (in quality and method) to those that you are citing: if it is, then it is publishable. If not, it probably is not.
5. Be prepared for a months- or even years-long process for publishing. You will submit a draft, wait several months, get feedback from one or two reviewers, probably receive suggestions for revisions (probably substantial if you are just starting out, and especially if you are not very closely following standard methodologies), and then rewrite, possibly then going through several rounds of revisions, and after around a year the paper might be published. (If it is rejected, you could submit it elsewhere. Note also that a fast rejection would suggest they are not interested in seriously evaluating the paper, while a slow rejection or acceptance would mean reviewers took their time to look over it and decide.)
The most important thing you can do is to seek feedback, and then continue to develop and change your ideas based on that feedback. Research doesn't have an endpoint, just incremental improvements.
