Learn Hardcore Turkish: O sahile doğruca indi, sonra da yürüyüşe devam etti. - She went straight down to the shore, and then continued her walk.

Sahile doğruca indi, sonra da yürüyüşe devam etti. Use O if you’re introducing or contrasting the subject, or for clarity/emphasis, especially after a topic change.

Why is it sahil‑e and not something like sahil‑de or sahil‑i?

‑e/‑a (dative) marks motion toward a goal: sahil‑e = “to the shore.”
‑de/‑da (locative) means “at/on/in”: sahil‑de = “at the shore.”
‑i/‑ı/‑u/‑ü (accusative) marks a definite direct object: sahil‑i would be “the shore (as object),” which doesn’t fit with “descend.” So here the dative is required because there is movement toward a place.

Does inmek take “from” or “to”? I’ve seen both.

Both are possible, with different cases:

Source (from): Arabadan indi = “He got off the bus.” (ablative ‑dan/‑den)
Destination/landing point (to/onto): Piste indi = “It landed on the runway.” (dative ‑e/‑a) In your sentence, sahil‑e indi expresses descending to/onto the shore.

What does doğruca add? How is it different from doğru or doğrudan?

doğruca = “straight, directly (without detour),” often with motion: doğruca sahile.
doğru as a postposition with dative means “toward”: sahil‑e doğru indi = “headed toward the shore” (may or may not reach it).
doğrudan = “directly,” often in the sense “without intermediaries.” With motion, doğruca is more idiomatic; doğrudan sahile indi is possible but slightly less natural in everyday speech. Nuance: doğruca suggests a straight beeline to the goal.

Can I move doğruca to another position?

Yes. Common options:

Doğruca sahile indi (adverb before the destination)
Sahile doğruca indi (adverb right before the verb) Both are fine; word order tweaks emphasis slightly rather than meaning.

What is da doing in sonra da?

This da/de is the clitic meaning “also/too/and (then),” adding a mild “and then”/“next” feel. It’s written separately: sonra da, not “sonrada.” It follows two‑way vowel harmony (da/de) but never becomes ta/te (that only happens with the locative suffix). Here it smooths the sequence: “then (also) …”

Can I attach da somewhere else?

Yes, to shift emphasis:

Sonra yürüyüşe de devam etti = “Then he also continued the walk (in addition to something else).”
O da sahile doğruca indi = “He, too, went straight to the shore.” The clitic da/de attaches to the word it emphasizes and is written as a separate word.

Why is it devam etti (two words), and why etti not “eddi”?

devam etmek is a light‑verb construction (“to continue”), so it’s written as two words.
Past tense is ‑DI. After a voiceless consonant, D devoices to T: et‑ + ‑di → etti (not “eddi”). Compare: in‑ + ‑di → indi (no devoicing after the voiced consonant n).

Why yürüyüş‑e and not yürümey‑e? Which is more natural?

Both are correct with a nuance difference:

yürüyüşe devam etti = “continued with the walk” (noun)
yürümeye devam etti = “continued walking” (verbal noun/infinitive in ‑mA) Everyday Turkish uses both freely; yürümeye focuses on the action, yürüyüşe on the event/activity as a thing.

Should it be yürüyüşüne (with possessive) instead of yürüyüşe?

You can say either, depending on nuance:

yürüyüşe devam etti = “continued the walk” (generic/the walk in progress)
yürüyüşüne devam etti = “continued his/her walk” (explicit possessive, often when “his/her” walk was already established) Both are natural; the possessed form is common when the activity is clearly the subject’s own ongoing thing (e.g., konuşmasına devam etti = “he continued his speech”).

Does indi imply he actually reached the shore?

With the dative destination (sahil‑e), it typically implies arrival/landing there. If you only want “headed toward,” use sahil‑e doğru indi; doğruca suggests a straight path and strongly implies reaching the goal.

Is the comma before the second clause required? Could I use ve?

A comma is standard to separate the two past‑tense clauses. You could also write:

… indi ve sonra da yürüyüşe devam etti.
… indi; sonra da yürüyüşe devam etti. All are acceptable; the original punctuation is natural in narrative.

Any pronunciation tips (ğ, ş, ü, dotted i)?

ğ (in doğruca) is not a hard g; it lengthens/smooths the preceding vowel: roughly “doo‑ru‑ca.”
ş = “sh” in “shoe.”
ü is front rounded (like German ü/French u).
Turkish distinguishes dotted i (i) and dotless ı; here you have i in indi and sahil. Accent typically falls near the final syllable: sa‑Hİ‑le, do‑ĞRU‑ca, in‑Dİ, son‑RA, yü‑RÜ‑YÜ‑şe, de‑VAM ET‑ti.

Could I say kıyıya indi or plaja indi instead of sahile indi?

Yes, with slightly different nuances:

sahil = coast/shore (sea coast in general)
kıyı = shore/bank/edge (more general; lakes, rivers too)
plaj = beach (sandy/swimming area) Pick the one that fits the setting.

Can you break down the morphology of the sentence?

O = “he/she/that (person)” (3rd person singular pronoun)
sahil‑e = sahil “shore” + dative ‑e (“to the shore”)
doğru‑ca = doğru “straight” + adverbial ‑ca (“straight/directly”)
in‑di = in‑ “descend” + past ‑di (“descended/went down”)
sonra da = sonra “then/afterwards” + clitic da “also/and”
yürüyüş‑e = yürüyüş “walk” (noun from yürümek) + dative ‑e (“to/with the walk”)
devam et‑ti = devam “continuation” + et‑ “do/make” + past ‑ti (“continued”)