bywalker

Can I get away with using the word "bywalker"?
My sentence is, "they break the fast and beam a smile at you, the bywalker".

No such word. You probably mean passerby.

I'd go with "passerby". Another option might be "bypasser", but that doesn't necessarily mean the bypasser is walking, so you could fit in the word "pedestrian" somehow.

I agree on passerby.+ To +bypass is to go around something, to detour, or to circumvent (such as to bypass a law).

A "bypasser" to me would be someone trying to walk around the people who are eating--for example, a big table has been set up in front of a house and you have to step off the sidewalk and into the street in order to go around the diners.

In any case, "bypasser" is not a common word.

Another option might be "bypasser"

What on earth? Not in any variant of English I am familiar with.

For 99.9% of English speakers, a "bypass" is a way around an obstruction (e.g. "coronary bypass") so a "bypasser" would someone or something that passes an obstruction. I do find exactly one dictionary reference to "bypasser" as a variant of passerby , but can find no examples whatsoever of anybody actually using the word that way.

What on earth?
No problem zash, I do understand that not everyone is as familiar as I am with the English language as it's spoken in various countries. Just because you've never heard it, doesn't mean it's not an option. I'll let the OP decide that. Like I said, passerby was my first choice.

Where did you come across the word bypasser, misterbee?

I would prefer "and smile at you as you walk by." Or "and beam at you as you walk by." Not "beam a smile" and not any noun in apposition with "you".

Are you serious?
You've never heard the word bypasser?
You have to get out more.

You've never heard the word bypasser? You have to get out more.

Vinny asked you a question. Do you intend to answer it?

"Bypasser" is flagged as spelling mistake in MS Word in their American, British, and Australian English dictionaries (I checked). Oxford Dictionaries online doesn't include a definition for the word. I was, however, able to find a handful of references to it in newspapers. Searching The Guardian, for instance, yielded 8 hits (compared to 3,500 hits for passerby); the New York Times yielded 14 hits (compared to 11,000 hits for passerby).

While even a tiny number of hits justifies you calling "bypasser" a legitimate dialectical variant, it's reasonable to ask where you came across such an unusual locution, unknown to most of the English-speaking world.

Where did you come across the word bypasser, misterbee?

In Australia it is always 'passerby'.

As it is everywhere else.

The whole sentence is actually
(The fasters arrive, one by one, or in pairs, sitting down in gloomy silence, still suffering their thirst more than their hunger.) Then, the call to prayer resounds, and the relief is written on the faces of people in the smiles they beam at you, the passerby.

Thanks for corrections.

Others may nitpick the style or word choices, but the only really important correction is "...still suffering from their thirst..."

Less significantly, I'd get rid of "of people" because we know that faces and smiles belong to people.

Still less significantly, most of your commas should go: The fasters arrive one by one or in pairs, sitting down in gloomy silence still suffering from their thirst more than their hunger. Then the call to prayer sounds, and the relief is written on their faces in the smiles they beam at you, the passerby.

Surely you want the plural, which I would spell passers-by.

Surely you want the plural

In the specific appositive construction she's written ("at you, the...") I'd actually favor the singular since the "you" is really an indirect way to give the author's perspective, not a plural "you" necessarily meant to include the readers or others in the scene.

(Vinny thinks she should lose the appositive, but I'm completely fine with it.)

Others may nitpick the style or word choices, but the only really important correction is "...still suffering from their thirst..."

I disagree, I think you could write:

"The fasters arrive one by one or in pairs, sitting in gloomy silence, still suffering their thirst more than hunger."

Down (as in sitting down) from and the second their are all obsolete.

I disagree, I think you could write:

"The fasters arrive one by one or in pairs, sitting in gloomy silence, still suffering their thirst more than hunger."

Well, you're simply wrong. When "to suffer" is followed by causes, rather than a single effect (e.g. to suffer martyrdom ) a preposition is called for, especially when two different causes are being contrasted (i.e. "thirst more than hunger.") If the OP had mentioned only "thirst" by itself, it would then be possible to treat it as an effect and omit the preposition.

Down (as in sitting down) from and the second their are all obsolete.

This is a misuse of the word obsolete+. You meant "unnecessary" or "redundant." And, again, you're wrong, at least about the "sitting down." The OP's intent is clearly that the people are arriving and doing the action of taking a seat, not that they are already seated. Ergo, "sitting down" is perfectly appropriate. (The second +their+ could be omitted with no loss of meaning...as could the first +their , for that matter.)

A better rewrite would be:

The fasters arrive. Waiting in gloomy silence, still suffering from thirst more than hunger. Then, the call to prayer resounds, the relief written in the smiles they beam at you, the passerby.

A better rewrite would be: The fasters arrive. Waiting in gloomy silence, still suffering from thirst more than hunger. Then, the call to prayer resounds, the relief written in the smiles they beam at you, the passerby.

I'm afraid not.

Besides substantially changing what the OP wrote, you've created two sentence fragments lacking subjects--a basic sort of grammatical mistake that any English teacher would give a failing mark.

you've created two sentence fragments lacking subjects

I don't think so.

But then, I'm sure you know better.

I don't think so.

This is not open to dispute. Your second sentence has no subject and no verb either. All it consists of are two fragmentary present participle phrases ("waiting.."; "suffering..."). In the third sentence, the first clause ("the call resounds") works; the second clause is missing both a necessary conjunction ("and") and a non-optional auxiliary verb ("is") to make a correct passive.

But then, I'm sure you know better.

I certainly do.

And people lacking even a schoolboy's understanding of English grammar would be better off not posting in threads like this one.