Hello!
I have been having a trouble understanding the history of the letters ‘u’ and ‘v’. I know that originally there was no ‘u’ and only ‘v’. Now, ‘u’ is used as a vowel, and ‘v’ is used as a consonant. Also, there was no distinction between them. Am I missing something substantial? Could anyone explain the history once again of these letters? If you provide some examples, that would be lovely. Thank you!
If you are interested in pronunciation, then:
The letter u is read [w] in words like suavis ['swa:vis], suadeo ['swa:deo:] and in ngu + vowel: lingua ['liŋgwa]. The letters -gn- are read [ŋn]: magnus ['maŋnus]. J is doubled between vowels: major [majjor].
See also U, V, W and Romans
In antiquity, the ancient Romans used only “capital” letters. They did not have what we call “lower-case” or minuscule letters. V was used for both the vowel u and the consonant pronounced like English w. Similarly, I was used for both the vowel i and the consonant pronounced like English y.
In the Middle Ages, minuscule (“lower-case”) letters developed, with capitols reserved for the beginnings of chapters. The minuscule letter corresponding to V was u; the the minuscule lerrer corresponding to I was i.
In the Renaissance, as printing became widespread, printers developed the capital U and the lower-case, differentiating between the consonant V v and the vowel U u. Also the letters J and j were developed to differentiate between consonant J j and vowel I i. (The use of capitals was also extended to proper nouns.)
In printed classical Latin texts today, some books use V v and U u, differentiating between the consonant and the vowel; others just use V u, adhering to the ancient way in which the texts were originally written. In contrast, most printed classical Latin texts today use I i exclusively. Printed ecclesiastical Latin texts today often use V v and U u, and sometimes, I believe, J j, too.
It seems, that at some moment “v” and “j” were calligraphic/typographic forms of “u” and “i”, regardless of words pronunciation:
- “j” was used as a form of “i” at the end of the words, such as “vij” for “septem” (7)
- “v” was written in the beginning of the words, such as “viuus” for “vivus”.
And then the spelling “i/j” and “u/v” was adopted to separate semivowels.
The OLD uses “u” for both u and v. Somehow ueni, uidi, uici doesn’t look right to me, but okay…
I agree with Barry on that one. I can read them okay with “u”, but they strike me as strange. Same thing with “i” for initial “j”. But, I guess it’s all a matter of what you’re used to. De gustandibus non disputandum est… 
Wiktionary gives an example when u/v makes it easier to parse words: “servit” (servire - to be a slave) and “seruit” (serere - to interweave).
In my opinion, it is no more than a habit, and extensive reading helps to get accustomed to any spelling. Just like blackletters, they seem horrible but when you finish first Grimms’ tale, you don’t see any troubles.
Recent OCTs print Vu for both consonants and vowels, which is my preference. Jj in classical Latin texts are an abomination, to my eyes..
Thank you all! I appreciate your help.