Algonquian language group?
Yes. The Potawatomie are the "Younger Brother" of the Council of the Three Fires (Ojibwe, Odawa, and Potawatomie). Itself something rather interesting, because of what was lost in "Pre-History" (somewhere around 700 CE according to some). Those three tribes separated off far enough back to develop variations in their languages. However, They claim to be descended from a single family, with the Potawatomie being the "Younger Brother" and keeper of the hearth. The Ojibwe are the "Older Brother" and the "Keepers of the Faith", the Odawa the "Middle Brother" and "Keeper of Trade".
So odds are at some time before 700 CE, there was a single tribe in the upper Great Lakes, that peacefully broke into three other tribes. But unlike most similar situations in the past there was no fighting between them, and the tribes for over 1,000 years continued a peaceful and close relationship. In what was probably the oldest and most stable of the Pre-Columbian Indian Confederations.
As far as the Apache, they had settled in their area long before, so that is much more a case of their being isolated and stagnating. As even among the other tribes in the region, the Apache were known to be hostile towards all and not very welcoming of trade. And even where they decided to settle down, a very hostile environment where travel and trade were not easy.
The Aztec language did not spread all that far outside of the Mexico City area. That was much less like say the Roman Empire where they exported their culture and language throughout their empire. For the Aztecs, it was closer to client states that maintained rule not through trade and leadership but fear. And it was not even a particularly old Empire, only stretching about 200 years Pre-Columbian. And not particularly stable even before the Spanish arrived, as they discovered by being able to sway a great many "Client Tribes" away from the Aztecs and to follow them instead.
In particular, I have a fascination with Pre-Columbian tribes, as it is most likely the closest we will ever see to Neolithic Eurasia and Africa. And interestingly, across two continents the people were only able to develop their civilizations so far, then they just collapsed. Incans, Mayans, Toltecs, Olmecs, Aztecs, Mississipians, it is something that was repeated back well over two thousand years. The culture would advance quite a bit, then something did a "Hard Reset" and threw it right back into semi-nomadic neolithic groups again.
But the advantage is, in the Americas we can see that happening even before Europeans arrived, so it was much closer in time. Where as a similar era in Eurasia would be probably that of Otzi or older. We know of trade and commerce in Eurasia going back over 5,000 years, but that entire era of history is completely lost to us. But in the Americas, we can see what it might have been like only 500 years ago.
No, the Apache likely simply retained their language from their original forefathers that arrived there after passing through Alaska and Canada. And with little outside contact their language simply changed very little. However, the tribe that was probably the most traveled was likely the Lakota. It is known from their own oral traditions, artifacts and language that they were part of the Mississippian Culture. And originated from somewhere along the Mississippi-Louisiana Panhandle region. And when that culture broke up, they became the "Nomadic Biker Gang" of the continent.
First moving North along the Mississippi, and fighting every tribal group they came in contact with. And that would have started in the middle 1400s, a few decades before Columbus arrived in the area. At about the time of Jamestown, they had reached the Great Lakes. Where they would have fought my ancestors, and been defeated. Being forced to turn West instead of continuing North, and acquiring a new "Nickname" that still follows them ("Sioux" is an Algonquin word for "Little Rattlesnake").
And the Lakota never did settle down. By the time of the founding of the US they were pushing though Iowa and Minnesota, by the time of the Civil War they were in the Dakotas. By the time of "American Settlement" in the region they were starting to push into Wyoming and Montana. That s a rather unique culture, and one that is almost completely foreign to most in the world. They never settled down, they never really "had a home". They quite literally were always on the move, and attacked any they came across. The closest in Eurasia to them was probably the Mongols. But they also showed they could and did settle down, if they thought where they were was good enough. But the Lakota, they never settled down. And for almost 500 years moved from almost the Gulf of Mexico to Lake Superior, then turned West. Arriving at almost the foothills of the Rocky Mountains before being forced to settle down.
And if not for that, by this time they likely would be somewhere in Central Washington-Oregon about now. And most likely turning South towards California.
That is a level of nomadism that Europe had not seen in well over 2,000 years. Not even the "Barbarians" that plagued Rome were nomadic, they were simply displaced by more powerful groups and forced to move into Rome.
