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.
"by" is the generic preposition when you use a verb in passive voice -- of the form "It was verb'ed by subject". In the case of the verb phrases "to hand down" and "to pass down", "from" typically fits as a better preposition, because "from" is expressing the transfer of the thing being passed/handed down.
You don't necessarily need "from" if "to" is in the sentence -- using "to" is to indicate who is receiving the thing being passed/handed down. For example these are all valid:
- It was handed down to me from my dad. (more common)
- It was handed down to me by my dad. (less common -- gramatically correct but it won't sound quite right)
- The guilty verdict was passed down by the jury.
- The guilty verdict was passed down to the court by the jury.
- The guilty verdict was passed down to the court from the jury.
Best Answer
My opinion (not a professional language teacher, and this may be more subtle):
"work from" and "work at" mean almost the same thing and you will not cause confusion or communicate something wrong by using the wrong one.
I think that when I "work from" the underlying metaphor is that I am SENDING work FROM the place that I am "working from" TO the place that I "work for." So, for instance, "I am a speechwriter in DC. My boss lives downtown, but most days I work from home because I hate the commute."
compare:
"My job is to cook breakfast for the 500 people who live in my building, so I work at home!"
But I don't think I would notice if in either of those sentence you swapped the from and the at.
As for at and in, that's hairier. "I work in home" is definitely wrong. "I work in my home" is not wrong but is weird. "I work at home" is much more natural. This is probably the specific semantics of the word home, and has nothing to do with working. For example, "I work in a studio" and "I work at a studio" mean virtually the same thing.