Es gibt eigentlich keine Kommaregel für "because." Solange der satz ohne Komma verständlich ist, braucht er auch keins. Das gilt übrigens für die meisten Fälle im Englischen, nicht nur bei "because."

Putting it as loosely as in #1 seems misleading. Sure, we could figure out the meaning of most sentences without any commas at all, but there are nevertheless certain cases where commas are helpful for understanding, and some of those are not considered optional.

I think with 'because' it has to do with whether the dependent clause is part of the meaning of the basic sentence, or extra to it.

If the sentence exists in order to answer the question 'why,' there's no comma because the dependent clause carries the information, the news value.

Why is that plant turning yellow?
The plant is probably turning yellow because it's not getting enough light.

If the sentence exists in order to communicate some other information, then the main clause itself carries the news value, and the dependent clause is just extra, like a parenthesis, so it's set off by a comma.

You know, that plant in the living room is turning yellow, probably because it's not getting enough light.

Does that help? See if it fits the examples you've noticed.

Putting it as loosely as in #1 seems misleading.

Maybe so, but I find that commas tend to be more a question of style than of rule. There are, of course, situations where a comma is absolutely necessary, but there are many more situations where it's merely optional. Just as an example: I am currently reading "The Humbling" by Philip Roth, one of the most renowned American authors and a Pulitzer Prize winner (1997) - in other words: no slouch when it comes to good writing. Immediately noticeable to me was his extremely sparse use of commas; I don't think he uses more than one or two commas per page (on average).

Life's too short.

You can't make rules for this. A comma represents a break between two tone-groups. If you want two tone-groups, put a comma. If you don't, don't.

But to non-native speakers, that's like saying 'Use dative if you would say 'wem' ' -- it just raises another question. When do you say 'wem'? When do you sense a tone-group, and why?

In some cases it just depends on rhythm and sentence length, but in this case there is actually a logical explanation. If I were trying to learn English punctuation, I would want to know the reason.

Maybe my whole approach to it is to 'German'? ;)
I just like my grammar and punctuation to have rules. ^.^'

@MsLanna: You will be pleased to learn that there is a rule for commas in English: "commas are placed according to the desires of the authors/editors in such a way as to give them (the authors/editors, not the commas) the maximum pleasure".

Oscar Wilde purportedly once said (or wrote): I have spent most of the day putting in a comma and the rest of the day taking it out.

@Ecgberht: :- D, but are they really?

Cf.

The picture, which a New York Times journalist had taken last week, was published yesterday.

The picture which a New York Times journalist had taken last week was published yesterday.

#9: a good example IMHO, it's probably going to start a long discussion...

Cro-Mignon, mikefm, I don't get it. What's the difference? And what's IMHO - in my honest/humble opinion? Sorry, I haven't read to many English forums.

In der renommierten "Grammatik der englischen Sprache" von Adolf Lamprecht heißt die Grundregel:
"Das Komma ist das Zeichen für eine kürzere Sprechpause."

Also ein sehr individualistische Regelung für einen Autor.

re #12

This is just another way of saying (in layman's language, because there probably isn't an actual pause) what I said in #4.

Sometimes it makes a real difference:

I don't like her because she's the prettiest girl in town (but because of her sweet nature)

I don't like her, because she's the prettiest girl in town (and she knows it; experience tells me they're always a problem)

These two sentences have completely different tonal patterns. The second might seem to have a pause at the comma (which is what Lamprecht meant) though probably it is only a transition from one tone-group to another.

# 12: try looking up “defining and non-defining clauses”

The picture, which a New York Times journalist had taken last week, was published yesterday.
The “which” here adds some information about the picture; i.e it was taken last week.

The picture which a New York Times journalist had taken last week was published yesterday.
The “which” here means the sentence is about a picture taken by the journalist last week, not one taken last year in Paris, e.g.

sorry Reinhard, I meant Janne, of course :-(

It is worth noting that historically in English legal documents commas were not used at all. This makes them difficult to read, but the logic is illuminating. Commas are obviously very easy to forge (in a handwritten document), and so those trained in drawing up legal documents were trained to do so in such a way that commas would make no difference to its interpretation. What I'm trying to say here (as in earlier posts) is that there is no word (like e.g. because) or structure that automatically triggers a comma, because the comma is an instruction to the reader on how the writer wants the sentence to be read. The reason for "rules" that one sometimes sees, such as "no comma before that" is that it is highly unlikely that there could be a change of tone-group before that, and hence the advice is sound in almost all cases. Incidentally I still find it a good principle to avoid writing sentences which have to be disambiguated by the use of commas.

# 16: then, as you apparently prefer to eliminate commas as far possible, you would make the difference in meaning clear in the two sentences posted by Cro-Mignon in #9 by rewriting one of them? The same applies by the way to your example in #13, I'd say

sorry - as far as possible

Mikefm

Sorry, you misinterpret me. I like commas. But if I find the interpretation of a sentence depends on a comma, I suspect there may be a better way of writing it, and, if I have time, I try.

escoville

…yes, I did apparently, sorry. And apropos legal documents, I’ve just had a look at a will written in 1979. Odd format, by the way, just a couple of inches smaller than foolscap…
There’s not a single comma in it; and they have written “…my wifes two still life paintings….”, i.e. no apostrophe or hyphen. Is this also usual, to your knowledge?
I’ve set seven commas, I notice :-)

“…my wifes two still life paintings….”, i.e. no apostrophe or hyphen. Is this also usual, to your knowledge?

No, that's just a mistake.

Tanks, mikefm.

Escoville, so you'd prefer to write the #9-sentences this way? (Let's see if I understand them right now!)

The picture taken by a New York Times journalist was published yesterday.
The picture by y NYT journalist was published yesterday.

And second one as before:
The picture which a New York Times journalist had taken last week was published yesterday.
Or even:
The picture published yesterday was taken by a MYT journalist.