If you're really interested in learning a language for itself, rather than using it for some practical goal, libraries that are "just" bindings to some other language with radically different semantics don't really count as a positive. They generally end up non-native and a real pain to try to write "language-A in language-B", unless someone has taken the time to write a native-idiom wrapper around them, which is pretty uncommon. So for educational purposes, I'd only look at the pure-Scala libraries rather than "the JVM ecosystem". Or, similarly for Haskell, Haskell still AFAIK does't have a great binding to native QT or GTK or any other really good desktop toolkit. There are bindings, but you're writing C in Haskell at that point, which is definitely a pain, and not a great way to learn the language.

If you want to do practical things with the language, by all means count the bindings as an asset. It's still better to have a foreign-library binding to some capability than no capability at all, and it's not hard to imagine that using another language for some reason, even with the cost of the foreign-idiom binding, is still net cost/benefit positive.