Was "J" ever used in Latin?

[Woods]

If it was a variant of "i" which wasn't invented until later languages came into play, would it make any sense to spell a Latin word with "j" today if one wants to represent some term that was used was Latin was a thing?

[mōdgethanc]

If it was a variant of "i" which wasn't invented until later languages came into play, would it make any sense to spell a Latin word with "j" today if one wants to represent some term that was used was Latin was a thing?

<J> was never used in Latin. You could spell modern Latin with it if you wanted, but it's likely to be mispronounced because <j> sounds so different between languages. Spelling words with just <i> works for Italian, so I don't see why it wouldn't work for Latin.

[cweb255]

If it was a variant of "i" which wasn't invented until later languages came into play, would it make any sense to spell a Latin word with "j" today if one wants to represent some term that was used was Latin was a thing?

It is actually pretty common to see J used for consonantal I. Likewise, you'll see V used for U quite frequently when it's supposed to be a consonant.

You will see all of the following in modern books on Latin:
1. Ubi Julius jam vicit?
2. Ubi Iulius iam vicit.
3. Vbi Julius iam uicit
4. Ubi Iulius iam uicit.
5. Vbi Iulius iam uicit.
6. VBI IVLIVS IAM VICIT.

No. 1 used to be more common, but has fallen out of favor for some reason. No. 2 is more common now, I see, along with 3 and 4. No. 3 uses V/J for capital letters and u/i for lower case ones. No. 4 uses Uu/Ii for all instances. No. 5 uses V/I for capital letters and u/i for lower case ones. I find this one more and more common these days. The last is how it would look inscribed on a monument in ancient Rome.

[Bubulus]

If it was a variant of "i" which wasn't invented until later languages came into play, would it make any sense to spell a Latin word with "j" today if one wants to represent some term that was used was Latin was a thing

There is a long history to the letter j.

It began as a variant of i found after another i, circa the 12th century in my experience looking at manuscripts (it may be older than this), in numbers like .ij. (=2), .iij. (=3), .iiij. (=4), .vij. (=7) and so on (numbers at this time were typically surrounded by two dots that way). Examples from a manuscript from the 1300s:


iij. (=3)


.iij. (=3)


c c.iij. (=203)


Later, circa the 15th century (I think), you find j as a variant of i in the same context in regular words, such as pij (for pii, or piī with macrons) in this Sixto-Clementine Bible, printed by the end of the 16th c. in 1598 (notice its use of æ, of -ẽtiam for -entiam and the abbreviation -q. for -que):



And so also alij (=alii, aliī with macrons), socij (=socii, sociī), etc.

Between the 17th and 19th centuries, it becomes the norm to use j for consonantal i: Julius, jacet, justitia, major, pejor, Pompejus (and pii, alii, socii are written with -ii). Here is an example of jacent from a Latin reader published in 1827 (notice its use of æ, the use of the grave accent on repentè to mark it as an adverb, and the use of the circumflex in eâ to mark it as an ablative singular):



And towards the end of the 19th and in the early 20th century, it enters into a strong competition with all the styles cweb255 mentioned above. You can indeed still find Latin prints with consonantal i as j (jacet/major/...) today, but it's nowhere near as common as it used to be just 150 years ago.