There seems to be some regional variation on this topic, so I will report from my AmE perspective.
In your particular example, either option would be understood to mean the same thing: the speaker works at some point during the course of each weekday (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday).
“From” would probably be omitted in either case as it is not needed to indicate a day range.
Generally speaking, I was always taught to indicate inclusive ranges with the word “through”. This generally has more application in studying mathematics, but could have an impact such as the following:
- Read up through chapter 3.
- Read up to chapter 3.
Receiving instruction #1 with no further clarification, I would read chapters 1, 2, and 3. Instruction #2, on the other hand, presents a quandary. It seems most likely that I’m supposed to read chapters 1 and 2, stopping when I reach the start of chapter 3, and that’s indeed what I would think if I were given no other hint as to the instructor’s wishes.
As you can see there’s a lot of iffiness here, so even among native speakers there is occasionally confusion and/or clarification. A misunderstanding such as the following would not be unheard of:
A: We’ll be on the boat Wednesday to Saturday next week.
B: So you’ll be back on land that Saturday?
A: No, we dock Sunday morning and we’re spending Sunday on the road.
As always, consider your audience and the context. Working those five days is such a common occurrence that neither word is likely to confuse anyone as to what you mean. In other cases, you may wish to add “inclusive” after the range to clarify that the whole of the end-limit you’ve named should be considered part of the deal.
If something is propped up or propped against, it is neither horizontal nor vertical, but diagonal.
- If you want to emphazise the not horizontal aspect, the "supported from below", use
propped up
- If you want to emphazise the not vertical aspect, the "leaning against", use
propped against
So the old man from your example is described as either supported by the pillows ("p. up") or leaning against the pillows ("p. against") - both can describe the same scenario but with a slightly different perception.
In general, I would tend to favour "against" for more vertical objects (a painting propped against the wall), but this is no fixed rule.
Best Answer
When attack is a noun, the preposition on is preferred with locations, e.g.;
If attack is used as verb, no preposition is necessary. All the examples below are taken from Google news
Compare the results for attack on Israel (blue), attacked Israel (red), attack Israel (green), and attack against Israel (yellow). All four are grammatical, but the first suggests that attacks on Israel are seen as acts of aggression aimed at a specific location rather than a nation. But it is a subjective point of view, so it would be interesting to hear from other native speakers.
In the example cited by the OP, the acid was thrown (at) or poured on the woman. The woman's body is considered a surface. The preposition on is used to express physical contact with a surface.
The main meaning of against is in "opposition to", in the following examples, against could be substituted with on.
However, between attack somebody and attack against somebody, the first preposition is usually preferred. Ngram illustrates that attacked him (blue line) is far more common than attack against him (green line)