nada que - nada para
I can't find any info on this grammar construction.. Can someone explain why or when the "que" is used after "nada"...
"No hay nada que perder" - "There is nothing to lose"
And also sometimes you find a "para"...
"No hay nada para comer" - "There is nothing to eat"
I think I understand why we use "para" here instead of "que", it is essentially saying "There is nothing for eating"...
However, does either "que" or "para" always have to follow "nada" if there is a verb that follows. In English, we don't have that. We don't say "There is nothing that to lose".
Here are some other examples...
"No tengo nada que ponerme" - "I have nothing to wear" "Nada que ver" - "Nothing to do with"
Thank you all
4 Answers
Here is something from a Spanish Grammar book regarding using que before infinitives when preceded by an adverb of quantity: poco, nada, mucho, bastante, etc. This is from Spanish Grammar: By Charles Philip Wagner. It is available as a free e-book online.
136. Infinitive after Expressions of Quantity. Certain expressions of quantity may be followed by que and an infinitive. nada que comer, nothing to eat. algo bueno que decir, something good to say. mucho que hacer, much to do. poco que comprar, little to buy. bastante que escribir, considerable to write.
In my reading and studying I have come across these types of sentence mostly with tener or haber (hay) as the main verb, but others occur from time to time as well....and not, I am not including the those with tener que or hay que. Tener mucho que hacer, for example, is not, in my opinion, got anything to do with the compound verb tener que.
I have also seen online explanations that indicate (guess?) that these somewhat idiomatic constructions using que as a connector before an infinitive is a shortening or what was originally a somewhat longer relative clause. For example;
No tengo nada que hacer. I don't have anything to do.
This may have originally been: No tengo nada que quiero hacer. I don't have anything I want to do.
No hay nada que perder may have originally been No hay nada que puedo perder.
There is nothing to lose ---------------->> There is nothing (that) I can lose.
I have also seen in Butt and Benjamin that que + infinitive is NOT permitted if the main verb is one of want or desire.
For example:
Quiero algo para beber. should NOT be rewritten as Quiero algo que beber.
This, at least in my mind, lends credence to the "shortening" hypothesis above, since
Quiero algo que quiero beber is impossible and even
Quiero algo que puedo beber seems unlikely / awkward.
Ok, while you are at it:
Nada followed by "de" is also a very common structure. I found this on the RAE, I am going to investigate some more on nada que y nada para... 
- nada de + adjetivo. El pronombre nada puede ir seguido de un adjetivo precedido de la preposición de cuando depende de verbos como haber o tener: «No había nada de satánico en sus procedimientos» (Dolina Ángel [Arg. 1993]); «Que te pregunte por tu mujer no tiene nada de particular» (Hidalgo Azucena [Esp. 1988]). Cuando esta estructura depende del verbo tener, el adjetivo puede concordar en género y número con el sustantivo al que se refiere, que es el sujeto de tener, o quedar inmovilizado en masculino singular: «Estas categorías no tienen nada de herméticas y estancadas» (MtzAlbertos Noticia [Esp. 1978]); «Estas inmersiones no tenían nada de romántico» (Bojorge Aventura [Arg. 1992]).
Have a look at this link in the meantime,
nada, nadie etc
I do not know grammar rules but you can hear.
No tengo nada que/para perder, hacer, ponerme etc .
I feel the meaning here Is almost the same.
Tengo algo que/para perder,hacer, ponerme etc.
Again it is possible and almost the same.
The same does not seem to happen with todo.
Tengo todo para perder, hacer, ponerme etc.
In the examples with TODO, "que" sounds weird to me.
Let us wait for others to explain if there Is a rule.
