Having different words for different concepts is great, but creating a new vocabulary will not be enough. There needs to be some training to make people use the words correctly. Otherwise they will just use the new words incorrectly.
This usually happens when people learn a foreign language that maps one word from their native language to two or more words in the foreign language. For example native English speakers often have problems differentiating "ser", "estar" and "hay" in Spanish, which all get translated as "to be" in English.
Getting enough training will be especially important for a conlang, because you can't just expect it to happen "naturally", if all speakers of the language will keep making the same mistakes.
Having different words for different concepts is great, but creating a new vocabulary will not be enough. There needs to be some training to make people use the words correctly. Otherwise they will just use the new words incorrectly.
Yes, a language is more than just vocabulary.
Getting enough training will be especially important for a conlang
Duolingo style training could file that role well.
Apart from that the quality of the textbook for the a conlang is vitally important for it. It has to showcase the features of the new language.
I'm working on a conlang (constructed language) and would like some input from the Less Wrong community. One of the goals is to investigate the old Sapir-Whorf hypothesis regarding language affecting cognition. Does anyone here have any ideas regarding linguistic mechanisms that would encourage more rational thinking, apart from those that are present in the oft-discussed conlangs e-prime, loglan, and its offshoot lojban? Or perhaps mechanisms that are used in one of those conlangs, but might be buried too deeply for a person such as myself, who only has superficial knowledge about them, to have recognized? Any input is welcomed, from other conlangs to crazy ideas.