Literary: The zoological reference in verse 10 is to lions. While the phrase is completely understandable in English, it is not accurate to portray lions in Mesoamerica. In that area of the world the big cat was a jaguar. What we probably have in this case is Joseph substituting a know animal (out of place) for an animal which was also a big cat. In other words, the underlying text should have been "jaguar" but the translation would be "lion." It is easier to see this as a mislabeling on Joseph's part than that the Mesoamericans would fail to correctly identify a jaguar.
In contrast to the more common English idiom in verse 10 we have a much more awkward description of fighting like an animal in verse 11. In that verse those who fought like lions now fight like dragons. The dragon in English literature is usually the fire-breathing foe of St. George and other mythical tales. This would be contrasted to the Chinese dragon that is a very different type of creature, more given to wisdom than fire-breathing.
The dragon in verse 11 is different from both of these easy references. We would not expect the Chinese wisdom-dragon to be a model for fierce fighting. While St.George's fire-breather should be a noble fighter, it is hard to see this animal as a positive reference. The dragon of the Western romances should be the villain, not the hero. Nevertheless, the dragon for Mormon's prose is clearly a positive reference.
The best explanation once again relies upon a Mesoamerican context. Just as the jaguar should be the animal referenced by verse 10's lion, this dragon is best seen as the Mesoamerican fictive animal that combines elements of the serpent and feathers. Particularly during Mormon's time, this feathered war serpent would have been seen as a symbol par excellence of warriors and fighting. It is in this militaristic context that the symbol appears in Teotihuacan at the Temple of the Feathered Serpent (Saburo Sugiyama, "Rulership, Warfare, and Human Sacrifice at the Ciudadela: An Iconographic Study of Feathered Serpent Representations", in Art, Ideology, and the City of Teotihuacan, edited by Janet Catherine Berlo, (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1992), 209-210)..
Reconstructing these verses in their Mesoamerican context, we might be so bold as to retranslate them thus:
And it came to pass:
The battle became violent and noisy
They fought [for their families]
Like god's jaguars for their prey.
And it came to pass:
The Limhites began to drive away the Lamanites
Though they were not half so many.
They fought for lives, wives, and children.
They fought mightily.
They fought like god's feared war serpent.
Of course this "translation" takes great liberties with the English text. The intent is not to suggest that this is a representation of the actual underlying text, but to simulate what that text might have been like. In both Maya and Nahua poetry, the imagery comes in shorter and more powerful phrasings, and the English meaning has been restructured to provide more of the flavor of Mesoamerican poetry.
Mormon is clearly creating a poetic play on the parallel between the lions and the dragons. When we add into the equation the religious/military significance of those images in Mesoamerica, the description of the fighting furor takes on new meanings. In addition to the strength of arms alone, there is the clear implication of the presence of the divine in the Mesoamerican imagery (translated here by the explicit addition of the modifier "god's"). In poetic terms, Mormon not only describes their efforts, but also emphasized the role God played in the victory.
I should note that John Sorenson has also suggested that the dragon is a Mesoamerican theme, but he misses the parallel to the lion, and suggests that the dragon is the caiman or the earth monster (Sorenson, John L. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. FARMS 1985, p. 187). While the caiman is certainly a respectable candidate for the dragon, as a representation of the earth it misses the significant militaristic characteristics of the war serpent of Mormon's time. Clearly there is not enough evidence to be conclusive, but war serpent appears to be a better fit for the contextual imagery.
Translation: What does this poetic recasting of these verses suggest for the nature of the translation of the Book of Mormon? Perhaps not much. However, because the verses may be recast in such a way as to increase their meaning through the appropriate contextual understanding of the principle images (lions=jaguars/ dragons=war serpents) it is quite possible that it is another indication that the relationship of the current English text to the underlying original language is one of meaning rather than absolute translation. This commentary has suggested as much more than once on the basis of internal evidence. This passage is yet another internal indicator that the connection between text and translation is loose rather than absolute.