See
http://blogs.salon.com/0001092/2003/09/15.html#a464
The really fascinating thing about all of this is that, whoever "started this hare running", a deliberate effort has clearly been made to introduce some changes and errors along the line—to see what effect, if any, they would have on the propagation of the "story".
On Monday 23.IX the story was receiving attention on British television after it had been covered in the Daily Mirror newspaper. I noticed then that the text shown on TV included not "at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy" but "at an Elingsh uinervtisy"
The misspelling "iprmoetnt" (for "iprmoatnt") seems to have been there throughout, incidentally.
What I also noticed in the original text, though, was a sure sign of its coming from a non-English-speaking source [I will revert to conventional spelling from this point]:
According to a research (genuine English would be: According to research, or According to a research finding, etc.). Later versions often correct this.
Then there is:
"the only importent [sic] thing is that first and last letter be at the right place"
Possible, though "at the right place" jars (see below). More natural English would be: "...is that the first and last letter be…".
But then we come to the question of the "it is important that x be y" construction: a very American use of the subjunctive. Was this in the original?
Did someone try to "de-Americanize" it in the versions (which you will also find on the net) which read: "...is that first and last letter is at the right place"?
If so, they got it wrong in any case, since, when using the indicative, it should be "...is that first and last letter are...".
A really English version would be: "the only important thing is that the first and last letters be/are in the right positions".
J’accuse this text of having been originally composed in an English-as second-language context and rest my case, M’Lud.
Coemgenus
